|
Replies: 142
| visibility 8464
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
What's worse?
2
Jun 22, 2025, 4:24 PM
|
|
Iran having nuclear weapons? Or
Us bombing Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
For the sake of this discussion, pretend that you had only those two choices, and had to choose one of the above options. I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Do you honestly not know what a false dichotomy is?***
1
2
Jun 22, 2025, 4:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Can you honestly not read?
Jun 22, 2025, 4:45 PM
|
|
What a total #######.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Actually, yes. Yes, I can read.
Jun 22, 2025, 4:51 PM
|
|
That's howI know you're committing a false dichotomy logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
You're nowhere close to being as clever as you think you are.
1
Jun 22, 2025, 5:14 PM
|
|
I gave two possible answers to the question I asked. If I were interested in a full blown discussion which took into consideration all possible answers to that question, but only allowed for those two possibilities, then THAT would be a false dichotomy. Of course there are other possibilities and nuances that can affect one's answer, but I am not interested in all of that. That's why I qualified the questio the way I did. Let me try again:
For the sake of this question, knowing there are other possible answers, assume there are only two, and answer accordingly. Then feel free to elaborate and address other possibilities if you'd like.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
What you're describing is precisely a false dichotomy
Jun 22, 2025, 5:32 PM
|
|
You're presenting two false options and limiting the discussion to intentionally exclude the correct answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
No it's not, but help me out.
Jun 22, 2025, 6:14 PM
|
|
First, "correct" answer is entirely a matter of opinion, and is not what I'm concerned with, and it's my question.
Seriously, can I not ask you to choose between two options when other options are available? I say that's BS.How do I word the question if all I want to know is which one of those two options you think is worst? Of course there are other options, but I am not asking about or concerned with them. Are you really saying I can't reasonably ask such a question?
Remember when you were in middle school and the question was who is the hottest between Susan and Becky? Those weren't the only two possible options by a long shot, but it was a hypothetical question, if you had to pick one of those, which one would you pick? There may have been a lot of girls you preferred over either of those, but nobody had a problem choosing one or the other. I mean, you could say, "Well, between those two, I'd choose Susan", and then you could add "But I'd rather have Jane than either of those".
Which do you prefer between Toyota and Subaru? Clemson or Coots? Bourbon or Scotch? Blonde or Brunette?
That's all I'm asking, and I don't understand why it's such a big hairy deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
You can do whatever you want, it's just completely illogical
1
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:20 PM
|
|
The fact you're admittedly not interested in the correct answer, is the problem.
No one cares if you're making an illogical argument when arguing over becky or Susan. But when you're literally bombing another country, logic matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
You are a moron.
4
Jun 22, 2025, 7:08 PM
|
|
My question isn't "Was bombing Iran the right thing to do?", or "Was Iran really close to getting a nuke?", or "Will this just make things worse?".
My question asks you to choose between to alternatives. In no way did I even remotely suggest they were the only alternatives. Doing so would have been a false dichotomy. Rather, I was only inerested in which people would choose between those two. We make choices like that every day: "IF you had to choose between these two options, which would you choose . . . ?"
Who was the worst, Bush or Clinton? is not a false dichotomy, and is a perfectly reasonable, valid question.
Who was the worst president ever, Bush or Clinton? IS a false dichotiomy.
Just because you don't like my question, because answering it doesn't give you a great opportunity to pontificate according to your hateful biases, does not in any way make my question invalid, and you are a complete fool by trying to use the "false dichotomy" card. I've explained that to you like you were a 6th grader, but you are too ####### dense to understand how it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
The problem is I'm not dumb, so it's easy to see through your fallacy
Jun 22, 2025, 8:38 PM
|
|
so let's pick this one part.
Let's ignore what you really mean is "who was worse, Bush or Clinton?" That isn't a false dichotomy because you're choosing a comparison between two people who were actually president and you're able to evaluate every factor of their presidency. One of the options must be true.
But that's not what you're presenting in the original post. An equivalent example of what you're doing would be saying:
Who was better for the military industrial complex, Bush or Clinton?
Bush because he passed the Bush Tax Cuts or Clinton because he invaded Bosnia? These are the two only two factors you can consider!!
Only an idiot thinks that type of logic adds any value to a discussion. You're clearly limiting the discussion to ignore the reality that George Bush invaded Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
You're discovering what many have found out...
2
Jun 23, 2025, 11:04 AM
|
|
you can't have a reasonable/rational discussion on, well, anything with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
You mean he won't allow you to argue unreasonable and irrational positions
Jun 23, 2025, 11:07 AM
|
|
so you get frustrated because your "logic" only works if you're being irrational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
No, you're an obtuse tool and every discussion/thread with you...
3
Jun 23, 2025, 11:17 AM
|
|
devolves into non-sense. You're not able to follow points, you make non-sensical replies after not understanding some minor aspect of an argument, and then you accuse the other person of just not being able to admit they're wrong. And you do it over and over again.
I think in my last discussion with you, you accused me of lying about an employee situation and lying about my position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
"You're not able to follow points"
Jun 23, 2025, 11:21 AM
|
|
Calling out the OP that he's committing a false dichotomy doesn't mean I'm not able to follow his point. It's just that his point isn't worth following.
That's a very important nuance that you seem to struggle with.
As for our last discussion, there is a reason you disappeared for a few days because you literally were arguing a story that openly and willingly created a hostile work environment for your employee in violation of title VII. I think we both know that story was fake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
You just keep proving my point...
1
Jun 23, 2025, 11:33 AM
|
|
I was on vacation last week, so yeah, I wasn't on Tnet very much. And the story wasn't fake...I actually know folks on here in real life and don't make it a point to simply make things up.
It definitely does not create a hostile work environment to not force employees to call another employee by a certain pronoun that isn't biologically correct. If you don't agree, you can take that up with our employment atty. My guess is he (and I for that matter) know more about this than you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
"I'm gonna sit here until you get back from vacation and say I'm right!"***
1
Jun 23, 2025, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [34242]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17380
Joined: 2014
|
Re: "I'm gonna sit here until you get back from vacation and say I'm right!"***
Jun 23, 2025, 11:42 AM
|
|
|
|
They's highly confident on every topic
Message was edited by: p6fuller®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Of course, you're smarter than me and Justice Gorsuch who wrote the majority
Jun 23, 2025, 12:03 PM
[ in reply to You just keep proving my point... ] |
|
opinion that sex includes gender identity under Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County.
It's just such a weird thing to lie about. No actual employment attorney is going to tell you that you're allowed to misgender an employee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
You're misinterpreting the case
Jun 23, 2025, 12:15 PM
|
|
Bostock vs. Clayton does not require employers or coworkers to use someone's preferred pronouns.
Try a few minutes on Google and Chat GPT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Yes, it prevents coworkers from misgendering employees
Jun 23, 2025, 12:22 PM
|
|
The law rarely (if ever) requires affirmative actions. Our legal system prevents you from doing illegal acts.
Are you just playing dumb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Show me the exact quote from the SCOTUS decision
Jun 23, 2025, 12:32 PM
|
|
That said people had to use someone's preferred pronouns in the workplace.
Don't deflect. Just give me a simple copy and paste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Do you honestly think this is how the law works?
Jun 23, 2025, 12:34 PM
|
|
or can we just agree you're spiraling because you don't want to admit you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Just looking for that copy and paste.
Jun 23, 2025, 12:42 PM
|
|
I'm sure you know how to pull that from a SCOTUS decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
It's not how the law works :)***
1
Jun 23, 2025, 6:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Ooooooohhhh
Jun 23, 2025, 8:27 PM
[ in reply to Just looking for that copy and paste. ] |
|
Looks like little Classof09®, who wants to respond to every thread so much that it breaks a browser, has suddenly run away from this request.
I wonder why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Wait? Do you really think you made a good point?
Jun 24, 2025, 12:02 AM
|
|
Or do you realize you're doubling down on not knowing how the law works?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Still no copy and paste from the decision?***
Jun 24, 2025, 9:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
This is legitimately sad at this point.***
Jun 24, 2025, 11:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
That's an odd way of admitting you're wrong but okay.***
Jun 24, 2025, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
You are, quite simply, wrong...
Jun 23, 2025, 2:59 PM
[ in reply to Of course, you're smarter than me and Justice Gorsuch who wrote the majority ] |
|
an employer does NOT have to force co-workers to address another employee by a preferred pronoun.
Said employee wanted to be addressed by "Ze" (I think) and our lawyer confirmed that we did not HAVE to force other employees to use that pronoun, but we did have the option to. We chose not to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Now we have confirmation you're lying
Jun 23, 2025, 3:15 PM
|
|
https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-forum/message/plenty-of-people-on-here-know-me-in-person....-36966237.
As for work, my position is pretty well known. We had a female employee last year that wanted the company to force coworkers to address her as a man/he/him. I did not grant her that request to force employees.
Now you're arguing
Said employee wanted to be addressed by "Ze" (I think) and our lawyer confirmed that we did not HAVE to force other employees to use that pronoun
This is really going to kill Catahoula® that I was able to see through the BS on this one so easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
You're doing it again...
Jun 23, 2025, 3:47 PM
|
|
I'm going off of memory (hence the "I think"), plus it's happened 2 or 3 times. One case was a she wanting to be called by he and one case was a she wanting to be called Ze or Zir. We have close to 400 employees, so I don't have every detail committed to memory and I didn't go back to look up which case I mentioned on here. But you think you've stumbled on to something to prove I'm a liar.
Tell you what...you believe what you want and I'll continue to think you're an obtuse tool.
And no matter what, you're wrong on the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
To be fair, it's tough to remember the facts when you're making them up
Jun 23, 2025, 5:33 PM
|
|
but I'm absolutely not wrong on the law.
You're just lying about what you did. There is absolutely zero chance any attorney is going to sign off on you encouraging your employees to call a trans man a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [34242]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17380
Joined: 2014
|
Re: To be fair, it's tough to remember the facts when you're making them up
Jun 23, 2025, 5:54 PM
|
|
You're making things up again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Any judge would be annoyed with you at this point
Jun 23, 2025, 7:01 PM
|
|
You've already been presented the evidence you're being dishonest and you're falling back on the even more dishonest "I'm just misremembering" line.
No one with any intellect is buying it at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
Right right...so where did I say we encouraged anything?...
Jun 23, 2025, 7:05 PM
|
|
You need to show where I said that and stop trying to deflect.
A simple link will do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26199]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14952
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Do you honestly not know what a false dichotomy is?***
4
Jun 22, 2025, 7:24 PM
[ in reply to Do you honestly not know what a false dichotomy is?*** ] |
|
Once he says, "For the sake of discussion ...", he can lay the ground rules he wants. You can then participate or move on. Calm down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
There is no attempt to have a discussion.***
Jun 22, 2025, 8:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
Not again with that ridiculous - I (Catahoula) knows what U R thinking
1
2
Jun 22, 2025, 8:43 PM
|
|
Where do you get this?
Do you really think that you know what someone is thinking, even if the person says nothing that would logically lead you to making that your ‘I KNOW what he is thinking’ comment?
Nutjob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
If a cute woman messages you on WhatsApp and asks you to invest in crypto
Jun 22, 2025, 8:46 PM
|
|
so you can run off and get married, do you actually think she loves you or she's just scamming you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [106]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Horseshite. There is only me asking a simple, easy, direct question.
1
Jun 22, 2025, 11:07 PM
[ in reply to There is no attempt to have a discussion.*** ] |
|
A lot of people on here who consider themselves to be extremely clever and pride themselves in imagined message board victories, ran that simple, non-trick question through their biased, partisan political ideological filter and instead of simply answering, and then elaborating on their answer as I suggested from the start, they immediately got snarky and defensive, imagining hidden motives on my part for asking the question, therefore refusing to answer or discuss and risk a message board loss (in their minds).
Claiming hidden motives and "false dichotomy" just confirms how biased, arrogant, and unwilling you all are to have any real discussion. You all simply did not like the question because it wasn't asked or structured in a way that you felt supported your chosen narrative,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
To be fair, Catahoula never argued your intentions were hidden
Jun 22, 2025, 11:45 PM
|
|
it was pretty obvious on its face what you were doing.
You wouldn't have had to exclude the correct answer if you wanted honest discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3979]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: To be fair, Catahoula never argued your intentions were hidden
1
Jun 23, 2025, 6:04 AM
|
|
What’s the correct answer o wise one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
That bombing Iran is worse than
Jun 23, 2025, 10:13 AM
|
|
an agreement with Iran not to build a nuclear weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
The "correct answer" to which you are referring is not an answer to
1
Jun 23, 2025, 10:07 AM
[ in reply to To be fair, Catahoula never argued your intentions were hidden ] |
|
the question I am asking, but rather a different question you would prefer I asked.
My question is simple and direct. You simply don't like it because it doesn't frame the issue in a way that aligns with your viewpoint and allows you to answer in a way that supports that view.
My question was very simple, and you could very easily answer it, then, as I explained in the OP, elaborate as to other options and give your opinion. In no way whatsoever would answering my question as asked prevent you from doing that. But you don't like it, so you throw a fit and get snarky right off the bat.
What's worse?
Iran having nuclear weapons? Or
Us bombing Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
Between those two options, which do you think is worse? In no way, no matter how you try to twist it, is that a false dichotomy, nor does it suggest that those are the only two possible options. That's just your imagination combined with your very limited faculties. That was the whole point of this:
For the sake of this discussion, pretend that you had only those two choices, and had to choose one of the above options. I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
The question which you would have preferred I asked I assume would look something like this:
"Did Trump do the right thing by bombing Iran?" or "How much worse off are we now that Trump has pulled this idiotic, reckless attack on Iran?"
You can go ahead and answer that here and now, if you'd like, so you can feel better by ranting against Trump. Go ahead, have at it.
But that wasn't the question I asked . . . the one you would not answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Your Original Post is literally a textbook false dichotomy
Jun 23, 2025, 10:23 AM
|
|
A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded.
That's precisely what you've done. You explicitly stated you must limit the choice to only those two options. A false dichotomy doesn't mean you have to pretend there are only two options, it requires you to exclude other options. Which is precisely what you did.
You're always welcome to commit a logical fallacy and have an irrational discussion. But, if you're going to do that, you have to own the fact your "discussion" is nothing but irrational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Who do you like best - Clemson or USuCk?
2
Jun 23, 2025, 12:15 PM
|
|
Oh, sorry, that's a false dichotomy/dilemma. What a fool I am!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my side! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
That's another logical fallacy
1
Jun 23, 2025, 12:18 PM
|
|
You're falsely assuming Classof09 had the choice to go to Clemson!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Re: That's another logical fallacy
Jun 23, 2025, 12:32 PM
|
|
You can tell it's killing you that you can't ever actually prove me wrong when I've proven you wrong so often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
Re: That's another logical fallacy
Jun 23, 2025, 6:04 PM
|
|
You’ve proven that there is functional internet service in an eco-pod.
The stench in there must be indescribable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Again, I didn't claim you created a false dichotomy
1
Jun 23, 2025, 9:38 AM
[ in reply to Horseshite. There is only me asking a simple, easy, direct question. ] |
|
What I'm saying you did was present an overly simplistic question--which is fine if that's how you want to discuss it and in simple terms.
However, you followed up your question by saying anyone who won't answer it A or B is stupid. And therefore, there wasn't an attempt to have a discussion. You doubled down by calling a man a "dullard" who attempted to discuss. Therefore, it's clear there isn't a desire to get into the nuances.
Look at this post. If someone doesn't want a "real discussion," they're "arrogant". But you're demanding the discussion be on your terms and I THINK you set up the question for there to be one right answer. That's further indicated by you praising anyone who chooses your first choice AND THEN NO ATTEMPT TO FURTHER DISCUSS IT IS MADE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
You're way off again.
1
Jun 23, 2025, 1:04 PM
|
|
I'm just asking a simple, straightforward question. Not a trick question, no gotcha. No need to try to stay a step ahead of me by guessing what my hidden motive is. Why can't you just answer it? Why go down this road of avoiding and criticizing the question?
The "dullard" reference was for this very reason. It wasn't meant to be nice, because "dullard" fits perfectly with this refusal to answer the question and engage in a reasonable discussion. I had quite a few who weren't afraid to answer, or weren't looking for a "gotcha", or weren't so easily offended. It wasn't hard at all, they just answered the question. I used "dullard" because as I explained, in my experience certain people don't like answering questions that don't support or fit their narrative. If that offends those people, I don't GAF; they don't have to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
You keep ignoring that the discussion isn't reasonable
Jun 23, 2025, 1:13 PM
|
|
because you're asking people to choose between two options that show bombing Iran was the right thing to do.
Reasonable people don't like being pushed into an answer that excludes the important context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
I didn't think it was possible to get any dumber, but you've done it.
1
Jun 23, 2025, 4:13 PM
|
|
So, according to you, asking if bombing Iran to keep them from getting nukes was worse than Iran actually getting the nukes = bombing Iran was the right thing to do? Huh?
If you answer "Yes", bombing Iran was worse than letting Iran get the nukes, it means you think it was the right thing to do, given all other options? No, no it doesn't mean that at all.
And I wasn't looking for the right answer considering all options. I was curious what people though if only given the two options presented. It was my question, and I determined the context. If you don't like that, then ask your own questions the way you want to, and leave me alone. Absolutely nothing wrong with my question or the way I asked it.
Using your stupid ####### logic, nobody could ever ask things like
Who do you like best, Clemson or USuCk?
Who was the best, Mays or Mantle?
Chocolate or Vanilla?
None of those include nor require all other possible answers; the questions, just like mine, asks you to choose between the two options given. Anybody who thinks that = "being pushed into a corner" and has a problem with that is a da mn fool. Reasonable people understand that and answer questions like that every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Can we just get back to agreeing that...
Jun 23, 2025, 8:26 PM
[ in reply to You're way off again. ] |
|
Classof09 is a dumb ###?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 92%
34
|
Re: What's worse?
2
Jun 22, 2025, 4:34 PM
|
|
Iran wasn't developing nuclear weapons, American intelligence even said this. Trump tore up the Obama's nuclear agreement which prevented Iran from developing these weapons. Every bad thing that happens from this is on Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Dullard^***
1
Jun 22, 2025, 4:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65639]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 38926
Joined: 1998
|
Given that no nation that does have them has used on since 1945***
Jun 22, 2025, 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Given that no nation that does have them has used on since 1945***
3
Jun 22, 2025, 4:55 PM
|
|
Some would say that Iran having nukes would make them more belligerent knowing that would almost become untouchable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14901]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
If dropping bombs on Iran is the right thing to do to prevent them from
4
Jun 22, 2025, 4:53 PM
|
|
Attaining nuclear weapons I'm 100% on board with that decision.
The problem is that I have less than zero confidence in the collection of morons Trump has assembled to run our military and intelligence; so, I don't know that it was the right move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Thank you. Good answer.***
Jun 22, 2025, 5:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1500]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: What's worse?
3
Jun 22, 2025, 4:53 PM
|
|
Iran having nuclear weapons? Or
Us bombing Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
For the sake of this discussion, pretend that you had only those two choices, and had to choose one of the above options. I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
Bomb Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon is my answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Thank you.***
1
Jun 22, 2025, 5:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: What's worse?
Jun 22, 2025, 4:55 PM
|
|
No telling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3733]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
The question is pure sophistry. What is the long term strategy?
2
Jun 22, 2025, 5:09 PM
|
|
Is Trump just going to play whack a mole with B2s every time they or someone else we don’t like start up some centrifuges? That ain’t gonna go so well.
Anyone who really wants them will find a way to make these weapons, bury them too deep for us to find, so the civilized world needs to come up with a better strategy then this.
Eventually it will catch up to us and bite us in the ###……….quite possibly sooner than we think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: The question is pure sophistry. What is the long term strategy?
2
Jun 22, 2025, 5:12 PM
|
|
Iran is the only one calling for destruction of the USA, death to America, and calling us the Great Satan, in a country run by religious nutcases, makes things a little different. That's why Trump, right or wrong, believes they can't be allowed to have nukes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3733]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Iranian mullahs are crazy
1
Jun 22, 2025, 5:58 PM
|
|
And so are the mullahs in Pakistan, which is an Islamic state with a long messy history with us. We let them off the hook so many times for harboring bad actors who have killed many more Americans, including OBM, than any Iranians that I know of.
The double standard exists because of Israel and because Netanyahu and the American lobbyists who spend a lot of money manipulating our political system. We should support Israel, but they’ve done an awful lot over the years to damage the relationship vis-a-vis a Likud party, a party that seems not to care one iota how many American kids get killed on their behalf and who treats American leaders like an afterthought.
This #### could easily blow up in our face big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Iranian mullahs are crazy
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:41 PM
|
|
Pakistan has nukes. That ship ship has sailed. Iran doesn't have them yet. Iran threatens us. Iran is calling for our destruction. The situations are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Sorry, but Trump has no altruistic intentions here.***
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:55 PM
|
|
Generally I would agree with you, but he may see Iran as a serious threat. No telling. What do you think his reasoning is? I think he thinks they are a threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: Sorry, but Trump has no altruistic intentions here.***
Jun 22, 2025, 8:21 PM
|
|
I think he does whatever will he thinks will get him the most favor. I don't think he puts much thought into pretty much any of his decisions other than: "how does this affect me?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8179]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 10533
Joined: 2013
|
The thing that actually happened is worse because it actually happened.***
Jun 22, 2025, 6:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Nah, your post is DOA with this line
3
Jun 22, 2025, 6:14 PM
|
|
I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
I know you like to post simple "this or that" posts, and they often generate good discussion. However, this one is clearly and probably intentionally slanted to make one look stupid if they choose the first option. This is a discussion that is far more nuanced, and of course, I know you know that.
So your line at the end is cheap. The only "dullards" here are the likes of Keowee, NC, Rangers, et al, and Smiling, you ####### know they are. They're the idiots who follow Trump regardless of his actions. Already I've watched them switch their supposed anti-war stances to idiot, mouth-breathing ######## that I saw people push on this board 20 years ago with Iraq. Crash was one of them back then.
Please don't mistake this as me agreeing with Classof09 because #### that guy and who is he to lecture anyone here on logical fallacies since that's all he employs.
LosTigres actually tried to give you a thoughtful answer. Your immediate response was "Dullard". This is why your OP is dead on arrival. That was an absurd response. You've resorted to calling someone a dullard when they attempt to actually discuss the issue instead of playing into your requirement that they choose an answer in which you think there is a right choice and a wrong choice.
So here's how an actual answer should go: Of course we don't want Iran to have nukes, BUT...
-This has the potential to lead to bigger issues had we let it alone.
-Israel could have handled this without us.
-We are currently led by imbeciles (and I know you agree), thus this is NOT the team to lead this operation no matter how much you think it's needed.
-Even if Iran DID develop nukes, they lack the technology to deliver and use them for years. Of course, it's naive to think they couldn't gift those weapons to another nation, but again, why are we doing that? It flies right in the face of stupid Trumpkin logic that suddenly it isn't America's place to intervene. So is it our place or not?
-Our nation is torn, swimming in debt, on the brink of violence, and we have an attempt to install a fascist dictatorship. Our military morale is low. The last thing we need is another ####### war in the Middle East.
-China loves this. They're not getting involved. They love when we pump money into these conflicts and destabilize our nation. There's a reason they don't get involved in #### like this.
So no, it's not an either/or question with this one. It never is. In fact, it's even more complicated than what I listed. This move was stupid, stupid, stupid by collectively the dumbest presidential administration in our nation's history.
That might make me a "dullard" for breaking it down into actual rational points, but I kinda think you know that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Sorry Cat, but I'm just shaking my head.
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:47 PM
|
|
It is flat out not true that me asking such a question is in any way dishonest, misleading, or an oversimplification of a more complex, nuanced issue.
From my response above, in middle school: Who is the hottest, Becky or Susan? Nobody screamed "False dichotomy!" or suggested it was a trick question ... because it wasn't. Neither is mine. You simply chose which one you thought was the prettiest, and answered accordingly. You very well may have thought a lot of girls were prettier than either Becky or Susan, but that didn't make the question bogus, because the question wasn't "who is the hottest girl in the world?", and asking which was the prettiest between two was perfectly reasonable and understandable. Of course, nobody was looking at everything through a bitterly biased, partisan political filter and try to stay one step ahead on a message board, so they were just able to answer a simple question.
Between Summer and Winter, which is your favorite? That does not take into consideration Spring and Fall, as the question is not concerned with either. That is not a false dichotomy, it's simply asking one to choose between two options. Now, if the question was "What is the best season of all, Summer or Winter?", and Summer and Winter were the only options, that would be a false dichotomy.
What's the best, dogs or cats?
Chocolate or vanilla?
Lincoln or FDR?
Us bombing Iran or Iran having nukes?
All of those can be answered directly by choosing one or the other, without sacrificing complete and total honesty, even though there are other options if the question was different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
First, I didn't accuse you of using a false dichotomy
1
Jun 22, 2025, 8:24 PM
|
|
A false dichotomy would have been if you had said these were the only two feasible options. You didn't do that.
Here's more of an analogy of what you did:
"Hey guys, if you had to choose between canned Chef Boyardee Ravioli or the completely superior prime rib dinner with a baked potato every night, what would you choose? And if you try to discuss anything else, you're stupid!"
You immediately stated that anyone who tried to take a closer and more thoughtful answer to your question was stupid, and then proved you meant it by immediately calling a guy dumb for trying to dive deeper.
So if that's the case, what's the point and why bother? You clearly think option two is the right answer, but what are you accomplishing by building a simply majority of a very base question to a complicated situation. It's even further cheapened when you try to compare it to asking someone to choose chocolate or vanilla. In fact, that strengthens my point. Chocolate or vanilla what, exactly? Ice cream? Butt cream? We need to dive further.
Deweather shuts it down nicely--AND that kind of insight is needed when addressing the question.
So my point is that your entire post is DOA when you tell your audience that they're idiots if they don't play by your rules in responding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
False.
1
Jun 22, 2025, 11:10 PM
|
|
A false dichotomy would have been if you had said these were the only two feasible options. You didn't do that.
Correct, thanks for acknowledging that. I was accused of that and assumed that was the basis for your criticism as well. My bad.
"Hey guys, if you had to choose between canned Chef Boyardee Ravioli or the completely superior prime rib dinner with a baked potato every night, what would you choose? And if you try to discuss anything else, you're stupid!"
You immediately stated that anyone who tried to take a closer and more thoughtful answer to your question was stupid, and then proved you meant it by immediately calling a guy dumb for trying to dive deeper.
That's not at all what I said or what I meant. It's been my experience on here that if the answer to a question doesn't support a particular view, those who hold that view don't like the question, attack the question, and come up with all kinds of excuses to avoid answering it. I simply tried to make it clear that I wanted to know which option people here preferred between the two I offered. You, or anyone else here could have very easily cooperated, and then, if you wanted to, elaborated why you didn't like the question and which other optios you preferred. Something like "Between those two choices, I'd choose the first option you give, but I don't think that's the best available option, and here's why". I stressed that in my question. There was no "gotcha" attempt on my part.
Me calling 09 dumb was in response to his non-answer which instead implied I was dumb, which was based on a false accusation to start with (false dichotomy).
So my point is that your entire post is DOA when you tell your audience that they're idiots if they don't play by your rules in responding.
My rules? I just wanted an answer to a perfectly reasonable, direct question instead of being attacked and refusing to answer the question, as dullards have done on here before. Guess what? They did it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Re: False.
Jun 23, 2025, 9:43 AM
|
|
That's not at all what I said or what I meant. It's been my experience on here that if the answer to a question doesn't support a particular view, those who hold that view don't like the question, attack the question, and come up with all kinds of excuses to avoid answering it. I simply tried to make it clear that I wanted to know which option people here preferred between the two I offered. You, or anyone else here could have very easily cooperated, and then, if you wanted to, elaborated why you didn't like the question and which other optios you preferred. Something like "Between those two choices, I'd choose the first option you give, but I don't think that's the best available option, and here's why". I stressed that in my question. There was no "gotcha" attempt on my part.
If you had simply presented the question, I'd buy that. I still think you structured the question so that answer two had to be the only right choice (again, you praised anyone who chose that and offered no further attempts to discuss... thus, there is no effort to discuss). Look at the terminology: "...could have easily cooperated". Again, that's the problem: You presented the question and then immediately insulted anyone who didn't want to play that game.
You say, "Something like "Between those two choices, I'd choose the first option you give, but I don't think that's the best available option, and here's why". I stressed that in my question. There was no "gotcha" attempt on my part." Er, no, you didn't. You said:
For the sake of this discussion, pretend that you had only those two choices, and had to choose one of the above options. I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
That's not stressing that at all.
Me calling 09 dumb was in response to his non-answer which instead implied I was dumb, which was based on a false accusation to start with (false dichotomy).
Well, he is dumb but we already know that. Yes, you're far more intelligent than him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Imagine being so filled with hate that you're defending a false dichotomy
Jun 23, 2025, 10:09 AM
|
|
His original post was literally a perfect example of a false dichotomy.
But it's exactly why Trump is successful. He's able to convince people to knowingly be illogical to maintain their hatred for a third party. It's crazy how well it actually works even among educated people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
It's not.
1
Jun 23, 2025, 10:25 AM
|
|
A false dichotomy is making an argument that there are only two choices and no others. Smiling presented a hypothetical discussion between two choices but he never claimed that there weren't other options. He knows there is a lot of gray area. It would only be a false dichotomy if he actually believed these were the only two choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
This is an easy google search
Jun 23, 2025, 10:35 AM
|
|
so I would encourage you to take a few minutes to google it and just admit you're wrong here.
In fact, a simple prompt into ChatGPT can solve this for you:
Why this is a false dichotomy:
The prompt limits the discussion to only two extreme outcomes:
Iran gets nuclear weapons.
The U.S. bombs Iran to prevent that.
This framing excludes a wide range of realistic alternatives, such as:
Diplomacy and negotiation (e.g., the Iran nuclear deal).
Covert operations (cyber sabotage, etc.).
Sanctions and international pressure.
Regional defense strategies or deterrence without direct military action.
By framing it as only those two choices, the prompt oversimplifies a very complex geopolitical issue. In real-world policymaking, decision-makers nearly always operate in a landscape filled with many options, constraints, and indirect consequences.
ChatGPT tried to save him and say it was a False Dichotomy with nuance in that he was acknowledging it was a false dichotomy but it had value in other discussion. But he's made several posts arguing it wasn't a false dichotomy so he wasn't insightful enough to intentionally do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
No. You're cooking the prompt to get the answer you want
2
Jun 23, 2025, 11:25 AM
|
|
He didn't say these were the only two options. Had he, that's a false dichotomy. He said pretend they are just for the sake of starting a discussion. I don't like the approach but your accusation is incorrect. You are being intentionally obtuse.
You also have this obsession with wanting people to "admit you're right," which speaks to some personal insecurities you have. If you care that much that strangers online admit you're right about something, that leads me to believe most people in your personal life are usually pointing out how wrong you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
I don't want you to admit that I'm right. I want you to admit you're wrong so
Jun 23, 2025, 11:57 AM
|
|
you can change your behavior.
I know I'm right. Telling me I'm right doesn't change anything. You being able to be an adult and admit when you're wrong makes the world a better place.
Now instead of admitting you're wrong, you're creating this conspiracy that I rigged the prompt to trick ChatGPT.
Here was my prompt:
is this a false dichotomy:
What's worse?
Iran having nuclear weapons? Or
Us bombing Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
For the sake of this discussion, pretend that you had only those two choices, and had to choose one of the above options. I know dullards on here have a hard time addressing singular issues on their own without viewing them in what they perceive to be the proper context, but I ask, perhaps futilely, for everyone to try first, then and only then feel free to add whatever qualifiers, context, or potential consequences you wish.
It's literally just his OP with the question is this a false dichotomy.
But you can't admit you're wrong. You keep making all these accusations about my personal life, but it seems much more likely you're projecting your own personal insecurities.
When I'm around educated people in real life, these conversations don't happen because no one in real life is going to sit there and argue that OP wasn't a false dichotomy. When it so clearly was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Okay. Keep telling yourself you're right. I'm sure that'll make it true.***
Jun 23, 2025, 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
No, that's simply a comparison between two race car drivers
Jun 23, 2025, 5:44 PM
|
|
because you're allowing anything about their careers to be used in making the decision.
But if you said who is better between Dale Earnhardt and Richard Petty, but said you could only consider the fact Dale Earnhardt won 7 Winston Cups and that Petty won 7 Daytona 500s. That would transition into a false dichotomy because you're intentionally closing off the fact that Petty won 7 Daytona 500s AND 7 Winston Cups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
LOL! In your hypothetical example between the two drivers, I would have been
Jun 24, 2025, 11:32 AM
|
|
limiting the criteria you could use upon which to base your answer. I imposed no such limitations on the criteria you could use when choosing between my given choices. The only thing I limited was the choices themselves, exactly as in the Earnhardt/Petty question. Both are perfectly normal, reasonable questions like people answer every single day.
Try again! Or, just admit there is no false dichotomy, and instead it's just that the two options I gave don't easily lend themselves to your chosen narrative, because that's all that's going on here.
When I ask who's best between Earnhardt and Petty, Bill Elliot fans may not like it because I left him out. Well, that's tough titty; I'm the one asking the question, and I want to know which one people think is best between Earnhardt and Petty. I don't care about Elliot; my question in no way whatsoever concerns him. And it's a totally reasonable, normal, fair question.
I think you would have been happy had I asked "Did Trump do the right thing by bombing Iran?" But that was not what I wanted to know, so that was not my question. Furthermore, me NOT asking that question is not wrong. It was a perfectly normal, reasonable question the way I asked it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Look, your post was the quintessential false dichotomy
Jun 24, 2025, 6:55 PM
|
|
If you're not able to spend a couple of hours learning about false dichotomies and realize what you did wrong, you probably lack the cognitive skills to have legitimate discourse.
There isn't an issue of opinion right now. You clearly made a false dichotomy.
You did so because you wanted one of the answers to be right and the other answer to be wrong. You didn't want a legitimate discussion. What value do you think you're adding by making such a one-sided discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5941]
TigerPulse: 91%
39
|
Re: What's worse?
2
Jun 22, 2025, 6:19 PM
|
|
Iran having nuclear weapons is worse,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Wow, the monkey actually can talk instead of just clicking buttons.***
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5941]
TigerPulse: 91%
39
|
Re: Wow, the monkey actually can talk instead of just clicking buttons.***
1
2
Jun 22, 2025, 6:52 PM
|
|
You really got me there big guy! Good one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Thank you! See everybody, it's not hard!***
1
Jun 22, 2025, 6:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: What's worse? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
We already live in a world where stupid people have the mic
1
Jun 22, 2025, 8:30 PM
|
|
A man attempted to answer your question with some thought, and you called him stupid. Cashmoney, one of our dumbest posters here who can't string together a full paragraph and just mashes TU and TD all day, is now patted on the head when he plays into the simplicity.
This was a perfect example in our society of how smart people now stay quiet so they're not catching "darts," as Jonathan Haidt wrote well in his Atlantic piece, and the monkeys are rewarded for throwing their feces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5941]
TigerPulse: 91%
39
|
Re: We already live in a world where stupid people have the mic
1
Jun 22, 2025, 9:15 PM
|
|
How tall are you? You strike me as someone with a Napoleon complex…nothing wrong with being short, honestly just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
I rest my case. The monkeys are rewarded for throwing feces.***
1
Jun 23, 2025, 9:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5941]
TigerPulse: 91%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [106]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Soccer Mom
1
Jun 23, 2025, 9:21 AM
|
|
Is the big TDer
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [89210]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 48498
Joined: 2007
|
Genuinely curious again, are you attempting to insult me by calling me a "mom"?***
Jun 23, 2025, 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19155]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 31070
Joined: 2006
|
If the 2nd choice leads to the first one, then the question is moot
2
Jun 22, 2025, 8:05 PM
|
|
Russia has come out and already said "countries" will now look to provide Iran with nuclear warheads. Now, maybe they were already doing or going to do that, but it certainly makes your question not as easy to answer as you think.
IF you knew bombing Iran would 100% make it where they would never get a nuclear weapon, of course, that's the answer, but that's not the world or reality we live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: If the 2nd choice leads to the first one, then the question is moot
1
Jun 22, 2025, 8:13 PM
|
|
Putin would never do that to Trump. Trump asked him and he gave Trump his word. Trump said he doesn't see any reason Putin would lie. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [109430]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 70997
Joined: 2002
|
Then having nukes is the worst possible thing. Period.
1
Jun 22, 2025, 8:38 PM
|
|
So yeah, a war would be better than a nuked NYC or LA.
I honestly don't think they can wage any kind of traditional war against the US, we're too far away, etc. They can sure screw up the middle east though, and the energy sector of our economy. And I don't think we are going to go to war against them as we just dropped some bombs on some nuclear sites, and probably did little if anything to set them back anyway.
Iran can surely attack our bases in the middle east though, and Israel. But the best bet is that we (mostly Israel) can destabilize them enough to have another revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
What's worse? TNet crazies that cannot answer a binary choice question
1
Jun 22, 2025, 8:54 PM
|
|
Smiling Tiger®
What is with all of the ranting from TNet’s crazies who go on diatribes about their ‘feelings’ (calling Dr. Phil) about your Subject post and thus seem incapable of recognizing that you had asked a simple question that invited a binary answer?
Does Costco have a volume discount special on crazy pills?
xxxxxxxx
Q. Which is worse?
A. Us bombing Iran to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
xxxxxxxx
I’m sure that if you become interested in more, then you’ll start a new thread.
Until then, enjoy what’s left of your weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: What's worse? TNet crazies that cannot answer a binary choice question
Jun 22, 2025, 9:18 PM
|
|
Why is that worse? Splain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
Re: What's worse? TNet crazies that cannot answer a binary choice question
1
Jun 23, 2025, 6:26 PM
|
|
I was using a simple answer (one that Gamecock 09 might have given if he had dared to answer Smiling Tiger’s binary choice question directly) to illustrate what would have been an example of what Smiling Tiger had requested.
Gamecock09 was afraid of the process because its simplicity would (in his mind) make him look bad or make Trump look good.
Smiling Tiger was not going to judge Gamecock09 or me or anyone about their answer. He was conducting a very informal survey. I know that Smiling (same as you) is no Trump fan, which is fine with me.
Did you see how Smiling responded to my answer? He gave a TU. Not because he liked the answer. The TU was because I gave him an answer.
A bit convoluted; I don’t blame you for the ‘say whut?’ comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Exactly. Just looking for opinions, whatever they are. It's unreal that
Jun 24, 2025, 11:43 AM
|
|
it devolved into this side-tracked mega-thread just because people can't bring themselves to answer a simple, direct question. And yes, I was intentionally insulting in the OP for that very reason. It's been my experience that a lot of people will not answer such simple, direct questions, and instead twist the question into some kind of hidden motive/gotcha attempt on my part, so they bob and weave and endlessly deflect. In my opinion, those people are dullards; NOT BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH MY OPINION ON THE GIVEN SUBJECT, as I welcome all opinions. I make no apology if I have offended them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
I'm done. Looking forward to Monday Dad Jokes and pewp stories.***
Jun 22, 2025, 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
Iran can't have nuclear weapons. They would have already paved Israel if they
1
Jun 23, 2025, 8:35 AM
|
|
could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
It's pretty wild that the leaders of Iran are actually more rational than the
Jun 23, 2025, 8:45 AM
|
|
majority of posters in this thread.
Do you really believe that Iran is going to nuke Israel the moment they get nuclear weapons? Instead of the much more compelling reason, to ensure their domestic security from foreign countries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
I do think they might - which is enough. Also, how much more annoying
Jun 23, 2025, 9:20 AM
|
|
would their proxies be (Hamas Hezbollah Houthis) if they had Iran backing them with Nukes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
So the Iranian Proxies spend years shooting rockets at Israel
Jun 23, 2025, 10:00 AM
|
|
at non-populated areas to limit the risk of civilian casualties but suddenly they're going to nuke everyone?
I think your post just highlights how "fake news" dominates the airways. You don't actually understand what is happening in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
Clearly, your knowledge of the dynamics in the Middle East is superior to mine.
1
Jun 23, 2025, 10:28 AM
|
|
I didn't realize the proxies weren't trying to hurt anyone with their bombs. And I really didn't know Hamas meant no harm as they were cutting Israeli babies in half (or was it setting them on fire?).
If Canada was randomly tossing bombs into the US and we found out they were about to develop a nuke - I suspect we'd take steps to make sure that didn't happen.
I didn't think Iran would give Hezbollah a nuke by the way. But it would make it more difficult for Israel to retaliate or protect themselves from Iran's proxies of Iran has a Bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Your last line is actually your most insightful comment but you don't understand
Jun 23, 2025, 10:41 AM
|
|
what you're actually saying. Yes, Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes because then Israel can't attack Iran whenever they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
Israel wouldn't attack Iran if Iran left them alone. I'm sure every nation would
1
Jun 23, 2025, 10:58 AM
|
|
love to have a Bomb. If a country that seems willing to go on the offensive can be prevented from having one - I'm all for it.
These folks had hundreds of thousands chanting "Death to Israel" during anniversary celebrations. Perhaps I don't understand, but I am of the opinion that you don't either.
Peace out, my good man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5499]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17875
Joined: 2005
|
Do you apply this same logic to Hamas?
Jun 23, 2025, 11:17 AM
|
|
Hamas wouldn't attack Israel if they were just left alone in Gaza?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2047]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: Do you apply this same logic to Hamas?
1
Jun 23, 2025, 12:05 PM
|
|
Hamas wants Israel destroyed and are one in the same as Iran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1500]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: Do you apply this same logic to Hamas?
Jun 23, 2025, 5:08 PM
[ in reply to Do you apply this same logic to Hamas? ] |
|
Hamas wouldn't attack Israel if they were just left alone in Gaza?
That is the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
If Iran wiped Israel with a nuke...
1
Jun 23, 2025, 10:03 AM
[ in reply to Iran can't have nuclear weapons. They would have already paved Israel if they ] |
|
They know that would be the end of their nation and leadership. The United States would go full send on them and much of the world would cut them off. Russia and China would not get behind something that reckless.
It just doesn't seem logical that Iran would try to use a nuke against them or us. A bigger concern is giving said nuke to a terrorist group but even then that seems foolish on their part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
It doesn't seem logical that anyone would use one on anybody. : - )
Jun 23, 2025, 10:18 AM
|
|
I don't think Iran would nuke Israel the second they got their hands on a Bomb. But (with the US of A's help) Israel can protect themselves from Iran and their proxies currently. Iran possessing a nuke would certainly change things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
you might be right..."might" being the operative word here...
Jun 23, 2025, 11:03 AM
[ in reply to If Iran wiped Israel with a nuke... ] |
|
Maybe even "probably" right.
But given Iran's leadership, their prior and current actions, and their rhetoric, people that don't believe they should even have a nuke aren't willing to bet on the "might" or "probably".
Color me in that camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
If Iran knows its going to get attacked at any given moment
Jun 23, 2025, 11:27 AM
|
|
By Israel and/or the U.S. unprovoked, do you think this might make them desire to build or acquire nuclear weapons even more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
Unprovoked? I think it would be very difficult to claim Iran...
Jun 23, 2025, 11:36 AM
|
|
hasn't provoked an attack. Is that what you're claiming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Have they provoked an attack on us?
Jun 23, 2025, 11:41 AM
|
|
We can argue they provoked it by proxy on Israel, but Israel has been far more capable than Iran is and they don't need the United States' involvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
On the US, no not directly...
2
Jun 23, 2025, 11:50 AM
|
|
but if the US has the stated position that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, then they have certainly provoked against the position.
I'm admittedly a little behind on reading on the actions we took against Iran and the lead-time up last week. So I don't have a fixed/final position yet on Trump's action.
But I wholeheartedly agree that Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
So far...(1) I don't like not having specific Congressional approval. (2) I don't like the Gang of 8 not being advised ahead of the attack and the admin only advising some Republicans in Congress. (3) I don't like that Trump hasn't presented more information on evidence that Iran was closer than his own DNI just testified to in front on Congress. And I don't like that (4) Trump so publicly disagreed with his own DNI...that was a horrible look and made it seem like he was had intel from Israel that his own DNI wasn't privy to, which is troubling on many levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Agree with all your numbered points
Jun 23, 2025, 12:17 PM
|
|
I also don't want Iran to have nukes, but this move isn't the right one, IMO, and may only encourage them to pursue them more and consider using them. Diplomacy would have been better, and Israel had this conflict well under control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
It would be interesting to know exactly why The US felt the need to act now.
Jun 23, 2025, 12:30 PM
|
|
I understand why The US had to be involved (if it's true we were the only ones capable of bombing Fordow).
They had their enriched Uranium in a place that only the US could effectively bomb. Once Israel struck - maybe it became clear that Iran would move their enriched Uranium and we felt we needed to bomb it now, while we knew where it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
If we had qualified adults in charge...
Jun 23, 2025, 12:33 PM
|
|
I'd be willing to give some grace that oh, well, I guess our guys knew stuff we didn't. With Trump and Hegseth running the show, I'm not believing it was a smart decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11558]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 12851
Joined: 1999
|
Granted. As my Dad used to say - "Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now
2
Jun 23, 2025, 12:42 PM
|
|
and then". His equivalent to "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".
I think it was the best course of action - BUT I do wish we had someone else in charge now to handle the fallout. It will take someone with diplomacy to keep things from escalating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35322]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 39405
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6422]
TigerPulse: 83%
40
Posts: 10063
Joined: 2001
|
Re: What's worse?
Jun 23, 2025, 9:27 AM
|
|
I prefer JCPOA. What happened to that anyway? Waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
Re: What's worse?
1
Jun 23, 2025, 6:37 PM
|
|
UN’s Nuke chief reported, back in July 2024, that Iran had enriched uranium far beyond that which was allowed per the terms of the JCPOA. Iran had enriched uranium to the ~60% purity of Uranium 235 isotope. ~90% purity is atomic bomb grade.
Yesterday or today, Iran threatened to ‘seek justice’ upon the guy for ‘exposing’ Iran’s violation of internationally agreed upon thresholds.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6422]
TigerPulse: 83%
40
Posts: 10063
Joined: 2001
|
Re: What's worse?
Jun 24, 2025, 11:13 AM
|
|
That was AFTER Trump withdrew from the deal and placed more sanctions on Iran despite the fact that they were in compliance.
Hope this helps. 😆
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Okay, I'll take another route
2
Jun 23, 2025, 10:27 AM
|
|
Choice number 2 is worse. Ready to explain why if anyone wants to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
Thank you!
1
Jun 23, 2025, 4:33 PM
|
|
Please explain if you'd like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Thank you!
1
Jun 23, 2025, 8:30 PM
|
|
Along with the points mentioned in an earlier post, I think this encourages Iran to seek faster and more devious ways to acquire WMD. They were basically blind sided with an attack by both Israel and us when diplomacy could have worked. They're probably also worried about talks of pushing regime change. They had no intention of harming us with a nuke; you hit one of our cities, you get everything we have AND NATO with it.
They're an evil regime but they're also not a desperate or stupid one. We might have helped make them that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66041]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49516
Joined: 2000
|
All good points.
Jun 24, 2025, 10:35 AM
|
|
Whether they were days or months or years away from having nukes (we the people will probably never know), they were already working as hard and fast as they could to get them, and I'm sure they will continue to do so no matter what. If our intel tells us Iran was close to having nukes, I think bombing those sites was the correct action. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11826]
TigerPulse: 97%
46
Posts: 14481
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Okay, I'll take another route
1
Jun 23, 2025, 6:31 PM
[ in reply to Okay, I'll take another route ] |
|
Now, that wasn’t so bad, was it? TU for finally stepping up.
Smiling Tiger® didn’t pop off at you or show any unkindness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [49202]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43907
Joined: 1998
|
Take your TU and shove it up your ###, you tw@t waffle.***
Jun 23, 2025, 8:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35303]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 19490
Joined: 2000
|
Re: What's worse?
Jun 23, 2025, 8:32 PM
|
|
THAT! Definitely....that's worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 142
| visibility 8464
|
|
|
50
