^

Voltaire lmao

that state of things are pretty bad when people are faking their own beatings to further a political narrative just because

Orange Man Bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqwTgk8ri0

Fuck Orange Retard

Trump is shite

Take note. The Democrat president at the time "Billdo Killiton" sided with the mudscums. "Genocide" was carried out by all sides in the balkanst, yet the mudscums received "protection" from the EU/US. Why? Well... look at which religious group was allowed to emigrate en masse to Europe (and in smaller numbers to the US)? Look at how culturally "enriched" those countries have become since.

If Orange Retard signs this bill, we can kiss America good bye

Digging how in less than 2 weeks the maga shit stopped in here again

It’s amusing

This place was wall to wall MAGA

Don't worry. Next campaign speech the usual suspects will lick his boots again

contemplating voting for the worst dem candidate to accelerate the shitstorm

Stop that

I thought about that right about when we began eating our own, 6 months ago

Didn't keep her out as the nominee, sadly.

Two failed campaigns, I sure know how to pick em. Romney and then Bernie losing to Shillary.

Don't know anymore, man

another 4 years of trump is just a 4 year agonizing slide

Hell even this server has the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you leave this bubble though, the right constantly fights itself on Social Media

?

NTS Fallacy is basically when a group says "no you're not x or y enough to be z."

IE: You're not right wing enough

For the most part everyone agrees here but, there's stupid fucking arguments from time to time

ah, yea, that sums it up

IE: Libertarian vs MAGAtards vs Israel right wingers lmao

And then every other shade betweeen

Which us discussing this is the Fallacy Fallacy

They're not meant to be substitutions or trump cards for arguments lmao

I know, I just found this to be a good overall definition of the fallacy you are currently discussing

It is, thank you.

would that apply to me calling liberal progressive gun owners who say they support 2A not real 2A supporters?

It would in the lowest sense.

IE: The 2A "I support the 2A BUT," and then you point out they don't, cause they don't

yea

Really good question

I would argue technically, yes the fallacy applies but, it's over-ruled as it's a logical argument that actually applies.

just not sure how they can say "i think the 2A is a good thing" and then vote for people who want to destroy it

As the 2A is a zero sum game, not a win win