Is Donald Trump a thug? Are we going to see more violence at political rallies?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Words don't have any effect.

Give me one causal connection between words and their consequences

You can actually literally mean this?

a reply to: blupblup

You can actually literally mean this?

You might have to rephrase that question.

All the candidates need to sit on a time out bench for two weeks. Everyone needs to act like an educated grown up.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Certainly my good man,

Do you honestly believe that words have no effect in the literal sense or was it just a flippant comment?
I hope that this answer clarifies things for you but don't hesitate to ask me anything else.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

I gave you two examples in which your words have a direct consequence. Why did you not address that?

Neither example are the direct consequence of words, despite your claim. Libel and defamation cases are the direct consequence of someone filing a suit.

What are the causal connections between words and their consequences?

Oh, I see what you are trying to do now. You're trying to turn this in to some philosophical argument in which words are just words and have no direct effect.

In that sense, you are correct.

But philosophy does not necessarily mirror reality. In reality you can be held accountable for your words and I have given examples.

Now if you want to have a philosophical discussion, by all means have at it. Forgive me if I stay away from LaLa land and stick to the real world.

Edit to add: There is no reason to file a lawsuit if the libelous/defaming words were never spoken. See how that works?

originally posted by: darkbake
We all know that Donald Trump likes to bully and insult people by word of mouth, but is he also a physical bully?

I don't recall any reports of him pushing, shoving, or hitting anyone himself.

Though, something not brought up in this thread yet, was Ivana's rape allegation (which she did take back):

I stated that my husband had raped me,” Ivana’s statement reads. "... Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

He is definitely mentally abusive. But we've already covered all of the words that leave his mouth. Is he just the kid that uses insults, threats, and mental anguish (i.e. lawsuits)? Does using others to harm someone else qualify someone as being a physical bully themselves?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You see, that is where you are blinded. He is not connected. He knows them. I know a lot of people but I don't trust them. That is the politician I want.

He does not preach hate. Seriously. Rough up...how about the 1968 DNC convention that was held in...wait for it...CHICAGO! That was violence. Talking about the protesters is a way to make him look bad as well as keep his views or 'new views' out of the news.

Words and consequences?

Dad - go to bed...
Kid - no
Dad- go to bed
Kid - no
Dad - go to bed
KId - before the next no is out the parent will tell the child they 'lose' something or 'in dem olden days' a smack in the behind.

Even kids know words have consequences.

a reply to: introvert

Oh, I see what you are trying to do now. You're trying to turn this in to some philosophical argument in which words are just words and have no direct effect.

In that sense, you are correct.

But philosophy does not necessarily mirror reality. In reality you can be held accountable for your words and I have given examples.

Now if you want to have a philosophical discussion, by all means have at it. Forgive me if I stay away from LaLa land and stick to the real world.

The real world, but one that applies supernatural causation to words and their consequences. Sorry but that is a false world, one derived from a superstitious imagination, the same imagination that believed in witches and demons and jinns and made laws because of them, laws which surely mirrored reality.

Blame Trump all you want but those who act do so by their own volition, not because words made them do it.

a reply to: Gothmog

And just how this simple tactic has gone unnoticed by Mr. Trumps supporters is almost beyond me. Trump pushing back against Sanders benefits Clinton. And was this not a major conspiracy theory from the beginning, that Trump was doing this to disrupt the elections so as to create enough chaos so that Clinton would have a smoother road to the WH?

Oh wait, now I know how this simple tactic has slipped by the Trump supporters. They are Trump supporters.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He brought up Sanders because his supporters were there. This is not something Trump is doing on purpose. I cannot still believe that people think he is doing this to end it. This is his biggest deal. He has waited years to do this. He does not start something that he feels he will not finished as far as deals go.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The real world, but one that applies supernatural causation to words and their consequences. Sorry but that is a false world, one derived from a superstitious imagination, the same imagination that believed in witches and demons and jinns and made laws because of them, laws which surely mirrored reality.

This sort of discussion belongs in the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum. Check it out. It's right next to the Cryptozoology and Paranormal Studies forums.

Blame Trump all you want but those who act do so by their own volition, not because words made them do it.

I agree. I've never disputed that.

All I have said is that in this world, the one you would consider "false", people can be held accountable for their words....and rightfully so.

Now are you going to admit that in the real world, regardless of how you describe it, one can be held to account for the words they say? Or perhaps we are going to continue down this road of philosophy and irrelevance?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Newsflash! When you act like a bully to a large part of people who disagree with you, they push back. What did you expect when Trump started his campaign? That the people he was pissing off would just roll over and take it?

In the same way, when someone turns up to a Trump rally and tries to bully everyone there by hurling abuse and stopping people speaking, what do you think is going to happen? Do YOU think you can piss all those people off and they will all just roll over? See how that works? Consider your hypocrisy called out.

Fact is Chicago did not happen because a large group of people responded naturally to what Trump was saying. It was an organised and recruited effort to cause chaos, not a spontaneous reaction to anything Trump said. It was organised by his political enemies. This is about politics, not the language Trump uses to deal with disruptors.

So the protesters got together and just randomly decided to pick on Trump and not any of the other Republican candidates? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rhetoric Trump has been using on the campaign trail?

There was nothing random about Chicago. It was organised by left leaning organisations. My view is that they did it because Trump is a serious threat politicly. As for the smattering of other protesters at each event, I suspect hat has more to do with an insane amount of attack ads demonising him as a racist than him saying he wants to punch someone.

Yea it wasn't random because Trump says inciteful things that piss people off, prompting THOSE people to turn around and do things like in Chicago. How are you not getting this detail?

It was recruited and organised. Nothing more than marketing to get a crowd. Responsibility has already been claimed for it. If I had enough money I could get a crowd of 1,000-2,000 people to turn up anywhere I wanted them to. I don't know why this fact will not get through to you.

a reply to: introvert

Perhaps we need a BS forum as well.

Now are you going to admit that in the real world, regardless of how you describe it, one can be held to account for the words they say? Or perhaps we are going to continue down this road of philosophy and irrelevance?

I never stated otherwise. Yes; people are accountable for the words they say, just like others are accountable for how they deal with the words others say.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes; people are accountable for the words they say, just like others are accountable for how they deal with the words others say.

See how easy that was?

Welcome back to reality.

"Trump said some things I don't like, therefor he is evil". This non-sequitur, invented by people whom have never met Trump and have little clue regarding who he is, is the leading factor to the hateful and divisive rhetoric towards Trump and his supporters. It's false; it's nonsensical; it's childish; and it is the first step towards authoritarianism.

a reply to: introvert

Welcome back to reality.

Says the person attributing supernatural consequences to words. Thanks I suppose.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth


If Trump did not say the things he has, there would be no "market" to pander to.

True - but like a lot of marketing these days, the marketeers in this case have sure dressed up the product to be something it really is not.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Who has said he was evil for the things he has said?

It's not a non-sequitar. It's a straw man fallacy.

You've created a ridiculous claim so that you could immediately tear it down.

a reply to: introvert

Who has said he was evil for the things he has said?

It's not a non-sequitar. It's a straw man fallacy.

You've created a ridiculous claim so that you could immediately tear it down.

A straw man is when you misrepresent another's argument. I misrepresented no one's argument. Signs that say Trump = Hate, Trump is Hitler, is clearly logically absurd, and I am speaking about these types of claims.