Will NOW Defend This Woman

[A18]

John Brown was almost surely insane. Does anyone actually think he should not have gotten the death penalty?

[A18]

Brown targeted five families in Kansas. In each case, he and his followers dragged the man of the house from his bed and hacked him to pieces as his family screamed in horror.

Oh, and none of them owned any slaves. No one was more justly hanged.

[A18]

Of course the pro-murder Democrats will defend NOW no matter what.

[A18]

Some communist moron who approves of hacking innocent people to pieces has some serious issues to work out.

[A18]

Why does it matter if he abused her?

[A18]

BRTD is either completely ignorant of history (very possible) or wants to hand out medals for butchering innocent people in front of their families. Thus, I don't see why he should care whether there was abuse or not.

[A18]

BRTD is either completely ignorant of history (very possible) or wants to hand out medals for butchering innocent people in front of their families. Thus, I don't see why he should care whether there was abuse or not.

I absolutely despise the IRA. However I am not bothered about time the time when they attacked the home of a murderous UVF commander, dragged him outside, and then shot him in front of his wife.

The people John Brown murdered had done nothing wrong. They owned no slaves, and their only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[A18]

BRTD is either completely ignorant of history (very possible) or wants to hand out medals for butchering innocent people in front of their families. Thus, I don't see why he should care whether there was abuse or not.

I absolutely despise the IRA. However I am not bothered about time the time when they attacked the home of a murderous UVF commander, dragged him outside, and then shot him in front of his wife.

The people John Brown murdered had done nothing wrong. They owned no slaves, and their only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They were pro-slavery activists.

Every heard of Quantrill's Raiders? I doubt all of them owned slaves either.

What is your point?

[A18]

He claims to oppose the death penalty for crimes of extraordinary cruelty, and even brags about how his state is so 'enlightened' for banning it so long ago.

And yet he approves of butchering someone in front of his family who did absolutely nothing except hold an opinion.

[A18]

There is substantial evidence that 90% of 'Bleeding Kansas' was just media hype. Still not getting how being pro-slavery justifies the death penalty, but raping a child and burying her alive to die does not.

Notice most pro-life groups don't support hacking you into pieces.

[A18]

Exceptions do not undermine a general statement. I'm sorry anything that contradicts your world view is a 'straw man' in jFraud world.

[A18]

LOL. You guys can not follow points at all. He's giving you an analogy, and you're not disputing the analogy but instead saying you wouldn't be on the same side of the exceptions argument (in other words, inconsistency).

[A18]

Okay, hold on a second.

Let's look at the theory behind the Laffer Curve. At a 0 percent tax rate, the government will (of course) take in $0 in tax revenue. On the other hand, at very high tax rates, the government will also take in very little total revenue, because no one has any incentive to earn income. Hence, the conclusion to be drawn is that there must be an intermediate tax rate that maximizes total tax revenue. Now if the current tax rate happens to be higher than this intermediate tax rate, the government can actually "cut taxes" and have more revenue to spend.

Now, I would dispute this with an analogy.

At very low temperatures (near zero degrees Kelvin), people will freeze to death and hence tax revenue will be zero. At very high temperatures (thousands of degrees Kelvin), people will burn up and hence tax revenues will be zero. Therefore, should we conclude there must exist a temperature that maximizes tax revenue?

If the Laffer-curve supporter in this argument followed your pattern of thinking, he would not dispute that the analogy was inaccurate, but instead insist that "there's no way I would argue there must exist a temperature that maximizes tax revenue."

By doing this, he does not dispute my point, but rather concedes by implication the inconsistency.

[A18]

The principle is the same in that exceptions don't disprove a general rule.

[A18]

You have yet to dispute the accuracy of the analogy. Simply calling something a straw man again and again because of an aspect that was not being compared does not qualify as a serious argument of any kind.

It has been explained to you several times. You just can't process information properly.

[A18]

Please look up what an analogy is and try again. Hint: it doesn't mean every aspect of the two is the same.

[A18]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

[A18]

Godwin's law does not 'prove' anything. Try following a discussion.

The comparison is all about general rules and exceptions. The fact that a generalization about Nazism does not apply to specific Nazis does not mean the generalization is false. The same logic applies to feminists. You have to dispute the percentages. Instead, you're pointing to exceptions, which is an erroneous argument.

[A18]

You can be a homophobe and 'support' gay marriage, just like you can hate blacks and 'support' black marriage.