I’m willing to be convinced by reason and evidence, but you have provided neither.
I don’t care about your opinion AT ALL.
I’m willing to be convinced by reason and evidence, but you have provided neither.
I don’t care about your opinion AT ALL.
I understand the concept of what a fallacy is. But like I said, unless you can explain what KIND of fallacy you think my argument is, simply calling it a fallacy thinking you’ve proven anything is a fallacy in and of itself. I don’t need to make your arguments for you if you want me to be convinced of what you’re saying.
Adding an ad hominem on top just shows you have no idea what a fallacy even is.
Yeah unless you can explain WHY it’s a fallacy, that’s just your opinion.
Simply calling something a fallacy doesn’t make it one.
Ah, okay then. The good old “you’re wrong because I say so.”
Didn’t I post a link already?
It’s because people somehow keep believing that voting for some politician is magically going to solve all their problems for them. It won’t. Things might get better for a little while if they actually DO end up passing some law that happens to work in your favor, but in the grand scheme of things, you’re better off not waiting for them to do anything and working to solve your own problems instead.
This goes for the left and the right BTW. Both have an unhealthy obsession with this sort of mindset.
Ah, okay. Great argument, I’m totally convinced now. /s
Well I’m not arguing that what he did should be illegal, just that I consider it bad taste.
It’s like if I went and did a standup routine consisting of Holocaust jokes and then a couple of years later complained about a rise in antisemitism.
If he was serious, he should at least publicly acknowledge that he DID contribute to the issue and formally distance himself from his old work. Otherwise, it just seems rather disingenuous.
As a Christian, I agree with this idea and I also find the proposed law rather silly because it’s the same kind of virtue signaling that conservatives love to accuse liberals of.
What I don’t understand is why the article considers this “standing up for LGBT+ rights”. Can anyone help me with that?
Unfortunately, unless you also follow the Bible to a larger degree than they do, it makes you just as much of a hypocrite.
To be fair, the Bible says nothing about having to follow the pope in order to get to heaven.
In fact, one could even argue that Jesus would not have approved of such an institution, because in Matthew 23:9, he explicitly says this:
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Meanwhile, the verse that the Catholic church bases the legitimacy of the papacy on (Matthew 16:18) is far more vague:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Well, if an undercover cops manages to instigate you to do something illegal, the underlying desire to do it must have already been there, otherwise you’d just tell him to fuck off. But entrapment is still illegal because if he hadn’t provided you with a chance to do it, you may not have followed through after all.
What you seem to be saying is “entrapment is fine as long as it’s done to people I hate”.
You’re missing the point. He deliberately encouraged people to express antisemitism and now he’s complaining that people are expressing more antisemitism.
“In my country there is problem and that problem is the Jew”
Yeah, you could argue that he was only making a joke or a political statement about latent antisemitism that was already present in society, but if he were the police (and he kinda IS policing antisemitism now), this would be called entrapment.
More recently though, he has spent his time complaining about the rise of antisemitism when he himself has done a fair amount of work contributing to it while in the character of Borat.
See, Microsoft cares so much about you they’ll even make a backup of all of your emails, completely for free, without you even having to ask. And here you are complaining…