>>>/pol/5229725
>it tells them that they are missing something core to the question in their response/belief
Er, how exactly?
Even if you're right why not just explicitly say it?
Posting some dumb picture just makes you look like an idiot.
>>>/pol/5229500
>Banning the emotional argument removes the element of human behavior that is essential to the understanding of politics
This is a forum for talking, there's a whole internet out there to observe.
>The masses are feminine, they are not inspired or recruited from the logical. they act from upon the emotional
Prove it. Even if they aren't rational now, wouldn't it be best to try to make them rational?
>these views must be presented to define [Did you really mean 'show'?] what is and is not rational.
Then those views should be presented not as serious opinions but with the purpose explicitly said.
>>>/pol/5231532
But rhetoric alone might 'prove' a point to some people
>>>/pol/5232059
>How about killing yourself because you have no fucking right to shitpost the same fucking garbage every single fucking day like a kike does?
How about answering the question properly like an honest person.
What precisely do you mean by shitposting'
I'm told it doesn't mean non-rational posting.
>>>/pol/5249327
>Free speech is an invitation to shilling and promoting group infighting or distracting group, with useless shit.
I agree but you're misrepresenting my argument:
I'm not arguing for total free speech, I'm arguing for freedom of rational speech only.
I am the OP of the /pol/ thread.