osarusan

This is the worst "both sides" argument I have ever seen.

25,000 planets, but only 10 faces and 5 voices shared among all the inhabitants of the universe.

But what do you do when his constituents actually vote for the plant? I mean I agree as much as anyone that he is unfit for office and should not be there, but if the numbskulls in Kentucky keep saying this is the most qualified person they can come up with to represent them, who are we to deny them their political voice? We can correctly say that they must be dumber than a vegetable to elect him, but don't they have that right?

This is the weirdest take I've seen on Astarion...

He's not part vampire, he is a vampire. He is definitionally an evil, undead monster.

But also, he's not a rapist. He never rapes anyone in the game, and he never tries to rape anyone in the game. When he flirts with you, if you turn him down he backs down immediately and accepts that no means no. Hell, when he tries to bite you if you say no he backs down immediately and accepts that no means no too.

You're also given plenty of chances to kick him out of your party and to even attack him, precisely because he is an evil undead monster. For Astarion to hang around, you have to explicitly allow him to do so.

Call him a monster, call him evil, but comparing him with a rapist is just so far out there and makes no sense at all.

This is the most frustrating thing because posts like the one you replied to get posted constantly, and debunked constantly as you and other commenters nicely did. Yet they never come back to say, "Thanks for the correction!" or edit their comments to remove the false information. They just go on to repeat the same tripe elsewhere.

Wow. This is a uniquely horrible argument with very little thought put into it.

We hunger, and food exists. We thirst, and water exists.

Tell that to anyone dying of thirst or hunger.

We feel horny, and sex is real.

Ok, so who is responsible for the guinea worm? Who willed that into existence?

This isn't a logical argument as much as it's a vapid bit of poetry, akin to "look at the trees." Thus it's not easy to debunk it with a logical argument, because any rational plea you could make can be hand-waived away with as little thought as went into the initial statement. Everyone is providing absurd counterexamples, which I think is a good way of showing how absurd the original statement is, but I think you'd do better if you pushed the speaker to form their argument into something more structured, to move away from wishy-washy nonsense and towards something that can be broken down and discussed. Otherwise your conversation will forever be stuck in the realm of "it just feels that way."

Are you replying to someone else? I can't tell what you're trying to say.

The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.

Dude, can you argue without resorting to insults? All it does is make you look desperate because you can’t focus on the subject, you have to attack the individual.

What on earth are you talked about? I literally attacked his argument, not him.

You, on the other hand, offered nothing but tone trolling.

it’s just this community

Yes, it's just this community for discussion of world news that literally anybody can join regardless of political beliefs or options.

If I commented elsewhere I’d get very different vote results

If only you had commented in a blatantly sexist community! You'd have tons of people agreeing with you then.

This is an "I'm 14 and this is deep" level of realization right here.

It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.