4 ms·
Argumentum ad populum, especially on contentious political matters, isn't persuasive. Nor on people who seek to avoid answering simple questions - you could've
by brigandish 2y ago
Argumentum ad populum, especially on contentious political matters, isn't persuasive. Nor on people who seek to avoid answering simple questions - you could've written "I cannot", or "I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier" and saved yourself the gnashing of teeth and personal insults.
HN needs to add a green ink font.
- leptons 2y agoMaybe you should work on your reading comprehension.
- brigandish 2y agoMy reading comprehension is enough to see an argument destitute of substance. For there to be a threat there should be evidence of a threat. Your aspersions, which you are so keen on casting against anyone who doesn't share your views, are not evidence of anything but hyperbole and irrational panic. If you cannot name a single person who is a natural born citizen that has been deported or has been threatened with deportation - or even anyone in power who has mused for a second upon deporting natural born citizens, via this legal change - then you have nothing. If someone can show that the legal change you're warning about does not have the consequences you claim, e.g. all of Europe, then you have nothing. You should get used to answering questions, it'll help you sharpen up your argument, that's why I ask simple questions[1]. Now, *please desist from your blatant and explicit rudeness*. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Socratic-method https://www.britannica.com/topic/Socratic-method