Debate techniques of the damned

I believe this one is called Minimization and Denial.

Exhibit A:

I have read the Court’s decision. Three people are not a “mob.” A mob is defined as a “large crowd.” So there was no “mob action” because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted “under color of law.” Which means they had legal authority.*

Exhibit B:

Buchenwald, on the other hand, while atrocious beyond normal human understanding, was merely a slave labor camp, and not historically abnormal in a time of war. The people who died there did so under the stress of work and disease, rather than as a deliberate attempt to wipe them off the planet.† Which, of course, says much more about human nature and history than it does about the Nazis.

Unless there’s a debate technique called Say Any Old Shit About Those People.

*Blatantly. Wrong.

†Likewise.

Posted by Hunger Tallest Palin on 07/29/10 at 08:37 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsNutters

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted “under color of law.” Which means they had legal authority.

The “color of law” they were acting under was white, and pointy. But since they only beat a handcuffed man to death instead of hanging him, that’s all right then!

o/t but WHATTHEFUCK?!?

God.  Do these people ever sit back and look at what they have just written?  Apparently not.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main