Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Townhall.com ^ | April 12, 2014 | Steve Deace

[HiTech RedNeck]

Or it’s fair to say, “I believe they oughtn’t to be [name the clearly deleterious behavior].” You’re not criticizing how anybody feels, only what he does.

[lavaroise]

Leftists also confuse privilege vs. Rights. Marriage requires a license and a licensing by both parties. Now association and assembly is a right.

Also when it comes to the urgency about Obamacare, it is one of funding vs. Delivering health.

Obamacare is not about ambulances with sirens but more with zealous IRS police brutality type needless urgency.

Each time they mention war on poverty or AIDS or environment as National Security, people are nuts to encourage that urgent police beating language. It is very deceptive. Government is about enforcement, not about services.

[lavaroise]

They mostly set their premises on lies or imagined fabricated off the wall “if” stories, not true stories.

When they say “back in the 1800s they had laws...” is annhistoricist legal law argument that has nothing with true history which is events that lead to setting up laws.

This fair then or unfair now system is based in theirninner evil heart of revenge and reequalizing things.

[wastoute]

Interesting and timely ten years ago, or more. Time for talking has passed.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, as long as they don't have homosexual sex, it doesn't matter.

UCMJ, ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Egon]

Ping.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I think you're looking at the version of the article before the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was reversed.

What I posted is the current version of the article and the previous version which matches what you posted.

[GAFreedom]

While "not accepting the premise" might seem to be good advice, it doesn't actually solve anything. Like this part:

“I’m sorry, maybe you didn’t hear me,” I replied. “I believe all men and women that are physically qualified and able to conform to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ought to be able to serve their country.” Now he looked confused. “So, is that a yes or a no?”

The reporter asked a close-ended yes/no question. If he had given me the same response that he gave the reporter, I would have told him what I tell my nieces and nephews when they prevaricate: Either choose yes or no or I will make the choice for you. And generally, you will not like the answer I choose, because I'm contrary that way.

By refusing to take a stand, you have ceded the ground to the opponent.

[plain talk]

I agree. One should strive to not concede premises while also not deploying “soph” tactics that simply frustrate and piss everyone off. Just being right and a smart ass is not enough. One needs to persuade

[dayglored]

Bookmark. Great article.

[locountry1dr]

bfl

[sauropod]

mark

[Impala64ssa]

bookmark

[rockrr]

BTTT

[lepton]

Trannies, at the least, don’t fulfil the physical requirement.

[Varsity Flight]

Bmk

[gogeo]

Excellent.

[gogeo]

Ayn Rand lives.

[gogeo]

Excellent.

[Theophilus]

Let’s see what happens!