William Buckley Vs Gore Vidal
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (2,660)
-
WRONG. Try looking up Godwin's Law. Other than the term Nazi NO connection.
You just made the fool of yourself.
-
@normalkuriboh- do you even know what Godwin's law IS?
It is a Usenet term. States: the longer a usenet discussion goes on, the higher the probability of a Nazi comparison.
Absolutely no comparison, this discussion predates Usenet's existence by decades, the axiom determines no win/ lose paradigm, and the discussion in question was not a formal debate, no 'turns'.
Vidal was pompous and peremptory. Doing that invites the very kind of response he got.
Your argument is inept.
-
@AmericansforFreeIran WFB loses the argument by Godwin's Law. His argument is flawed in a few other ways, AND he was interrupting Gore's turn. He was the immature juvenile, not Mr. Vidal.
-
Temper temper! Vidal begins with an absurd premise, follows with arrogant demands for WFB's silence, snd drgenerates to name -calling. WFB offers to bash him at that point, and I don't blame him.
WFB's arguments are NOT logical fallacies. And his citation of SCOTUS opinion is correct. You are way too quick in your broad dismissals.
-
Shit just got real.
-
Those were rough times.
-
@butchroy I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said you were refuting Vidal. Your stated reason only serves to expose you as a servile toady; a fact underscored by your convenient disregard for Buckley's poor debate performance, which was both logically fallacious -with its appeals to emotion- and legalistically sloppy. "Raw intellect" is not something one can measure through words alone; by that logic one could also dismiss Buckley for his vile, uncouth outburst.
-
And you'll stay plastered. Heh.
-
part 2: You say my nature is petty because I point to Vidal’s bad grammar. I disagree. Their language skills are what I was interested in. You defend Vidal’s statement as being informal. What he said was not informal; it was just wrong – indicative of ignorance and/or intelligence deficiency. Such wording could never come out of my mouth no matter how informal I was being, mad I was, fast I was talking, etc. I’m not convinced that you even know the error I’m referring to.
-
part 1: Your comprehension in severely lacking. I said in the opening statement of my comment that I was interested in raw intellect. I did not watch the video because I was interested in the points the two men were making. You say my point is moot; actually mine is not, but YOURS IS. You say to me: “what a feeble attempt at refuting Vidal.” As indicated, I wasn’t attempting to refute Vidal. I was trying to gauge the intellect of these men.
I disagree with most of Buckley's views, but he is like a superhero compared to the juvenile "conservatives" talking out of their asses these days.
1960mayhem 2 months ago 20
"Now listen you queer..."
lmao
pcgamer010 2 months ago 12