Quantcast
'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

deskpro2k3 said:
DrDoomz said:

Since you said “past few post”, then I’m thinking you’re including me?

If that’s the case, then you might want to read back, I’ve addressed every response that was addressed to me pages ago, in fact it was my comments that were not addressed at all. Just simply dropped and never replied to. And the debate in this thread has gone on a circular loop now. So yeah, you got it backwards. If you feel that I didn’t reply to a claim addressed to me, pls post it then so I may do so. If your “past few post” comment didn’t include me, then feel free to carry on but be more accurate of your wording next time.

1) Calling out possible hypocrisy AFTER already addressing the initial claim is not Whataboutism.

2) Stating your error and then asking you to either: provide the basis of your Whataboutism fallacy accusation or to clarify who you are addressing is not a personal incredulity fallacy.

If you want to pretend to be clever by using fallacy memes, at least know the fallacies that the memes are about. Here is a website that could help:

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

You’re welcome.

Might wanna brush up a bit, your improper use is kinda cringeworthy.

Have a nice day.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 06 November 2018

Around the Network
DrDoomz said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

Cringeworthy stuff

 

 

lets not go far into semantics, that can be a discussion for another thread. now listen close class is in session..

I don't care if you address other post since that has nothing to do with whataboutery, but it is the content within it that is. Secondly and in case you didn't notice, yes I was talking about you as well as others that want to say something similar along these lines; "but what about Waters this and that she is just as worse etc" That is whataboutism, but you're to ignorant to realize that. The fact is you and friends is pulling at straws comparing Waters with Trump which is not only a whataboutery argument, but a faulty comparison.

You can try all you want to sugar coat and for the record, everyone here is cringing at you.



 

ok I realize what I said up there was to combative. I'm sorry, I take it back. Lets have peace.



EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

This is the problem.  You are still trying to rationalize what others would do to a direct question that I asked what would you do.  I will ask again, would YOU consider if a person tells someone to kill your kids equally to blame for the person killing your kids.  A lot of things change when it's personal.  We can always find some way to rationalize what some mythical other person would do.

As to another question that is direct to you and no rationalizing what others might do, are you saying that no matter what anyone says, if acts of violence is done because they promoted it they do not share any blame.

You have to be more specific about the exact situation. Who said it? Were they the first? Did they get the idea from elsewhere? Did they have a reason to say that because of me? Did the person who did the crime plan on doing it anyway beforehand? Did the killer have a reason to do so because of me? Did the killer get anything else out of it, like money, and from who exactly? How many times has the killer committed a crime? Etc.

I don't necessarily think every single situation should fall under the exact same conclusion.

Lol, so you actually have to ask all of these questions in your mind in order to believe the person asking someone to kill your kids merits the same punishment.  You mean you care if the person had a reason or if you stepped on his foot in a line or if the person who did the crime was thinking of doing it anyway.  I believe we do not need to continue this conversation because I believe you are jerking my chain.  

I will give you my personal opinion.  If someone ask another person to kill my kids, I do not care what the motivation of that person, they would be equal in my eyes to the person committing the crime.



deskpro2k3 said:
DrDoomz said:

 

Cringeworthy stuff

 

 

lets not go far into semantics, that can be a discussion for another thread. now listen close class is in session..

I don't care if you address other post since that has nothing to do with whataboutery, but it is the content within it that is. Secondly and in case you didn't notice, yes I was talking about you as well as others that want to say something similar along these lines; "but what about Waters this and that she is just as worse etc" That is whataboutism, but you're to ignorant to realize that. The fact is you and friends is pulling at straws comparing Waters with Trump which is not only a whataboutery argument, but a faulty comparison.

You can try all you want to sugar coat and for the record, everyone here is cringing at you.

No dude. Whattaboutism is when you accuse another of possible hypocrisy to discredit a claim without addressing the underlying logic behind it. When you manage to address a claim (or at least feel enough that your reply managed to refute it) and point out possible hypocrisy after the fact. That is, what it is. Pointing out hypocrisy. The big difference and the important differentiator that makes one a fallacy and the other not is the fact that one act addresses the original claim/logic. As simply pointing out hypocrisy in itself does not address/refute anything.

Anyone is free to debate me on this if they feel my understanding of logical fallacies cringe-y. But I’m confident that I can defend my correct definition and understanding of it. I’m not sure you can do the same, tbh.

And semantics are actually important in this scenario as the specific differences matter and an incorrect understanding of a fallacy could cause you to call out fallacy where none existed. <— this is a big deal.

I can’t, of course, speak for others. But if they did commit Whattaboutism, that is on them, not me.

For the record, I intended to be combative as well. Sorry about that. But I feel that if I didn’t coax into a discussion, you’d just throw another ill-used meme at me. Personally, I can take a nice ribbing. But I’m kinda anal about certain things (use of logical fallacies being one).

But you are right, let’s not get aggressive here as it achieves nothing and if you would allow me to explain why I even bring this stuff up: It is because I AM anal about certain things. One of them is logical consistency and intellectual honesty. I feel certain ppl split hairs and use arbitrary and self/media defined qualifiers to differentiate the bad actions of one person that they do not like from their own actions or from the actions of others they do like. Such as when they think Trump’s actions need to be held at a higher standard simply because he is President but when pressed on why, most would provide sketchy or not clearly defined, possibly biased criteria.

This creates a double standard, an inconsistency of logic and a subjective approach to accountability. I feel that the media has basically convinced certain ppl that hypocrisy is ok for as long as it helps them hate the person they are told to hate. Of course, I could very well be wrong. I am willing to discuss my point, that is why I post. And I would love it if we would all do it with respect towards each other’s beliefs.

All-in-all, I am just trying to understand their thought process (I believe that ppl are mostly good, rational and logical individuals, that is why I refuse to believe this is simply an emotional reaction) as I honest to goodness do not get it and that is why I ask.

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 06 November 2018

Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

You have to be more specific about the exact situation. Who said it? Were they the first? Did they get the idea from elsewhere? Did they have a reason to say that because of me? Did the person who did the crime plan on doing it anyway beforehand? Did the killer have a reason to do so because of me? Did the killer get anything else out of it, like money, and from who exactly? How many times has the killer committed a crime? Etc.

I don't necessarily think every single situation should fall under the exact same conclusion.

Lol, so you actually have to ask all of these questions in your mind in order to believe the person asking someone to kill your kids merits the same punishment.  You mean you care if the person had a reason or if you stepped on his foot in a line or if the person who did the crime was thinking of doing it anyway.  I believe we do not need to continue this conversation because I believe you are jerking my chain.  

I will give you my personal opinion.  If someone ask another person to kill my kids, I do not care what the motivation of that person, they would be equal in my eyes to the person committing the crime.

Yes, because if you wronged the person who's putting out the hit on your kids, because let's say you already took out their kids for whatever reason, then how can you say they would be at the same level of fault? What if the person who performed the act, was indebted to them indirectly and their own kids lives were on the line if they didn't do it?

I don't disagree that when it becomes extremely personal it's not as easy to see things the same way in many cases, but the context most certainly matters as well.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

Lol, so you actually have to ask all of these questions in your mind in order to believe the person asking someone to kill your kids merits the same punishment.  You mean you care if the person had a reason or if you stepped on his foot in a line or if the person who did the crime was thinking of doing it anyway.  I believe we do not need to continue this conversation because I believe you are jerking my chain.  

I will give you my personal opinion.  If someone ask another person to kill my kids, I do not care what the motivation of that person, they would be equal in my eyes to the person committing the crime.

Yes, because if you wronged the person who's putting out the hit on your kids, because let's say you already took out their kids for whatever reason, then how can you say they would be at the same level of fault? What if the person who performed the act, was indebted to them indirectly and their own kids lives were on the line if they didn't do it?

I don't disagree that when it becomes extremely personal it's not as easy to see things the same way in many cases, but the context most certainly matters as well.

If I wronged someone and they came for me you would have a case.  If I wronged someone and they decided to take it out on my family, why would anyone feel like that would be ok.  You are throwing way to many hypothetical what ifs into a basic question.  How much wrong would you have to do to someone else that you would feel its justified for someone to take out your family.  Lets say you destroyed a person car and as retaliation they decided to take out your family.  Why would you care if someone else was indebted to the person asking them to kill your kids.  That statement doesn't make sense to the context of the original question since I stated the person asking someone to kill your kids not the person who did the crime.  

How much context do you need to justify anyone taking out your family.  The only way I can view your statement is just another way to not come to a decision.  For each question I ask, you keep moving the goal post so you do not have to answer it.  Like I said, you are just jerking my chain.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Yes, because if you wronged the person who's putting out the hit on your kids, because let's say you already took out their kids for whatever reason, then how can you say they would be at the same level of fault? What if the person who performed the act, was indebted to them indirectly and their own kids lives were on the line if they didn't do it?

I don't disagree that when it becomes extremely personal it's not as easy to see things the same way in many cases, but the context most certainly matters as well.

If I wronged someone and they came for me you would have a case.  If I wronged someone and they decided to take it out on my family, why would anyone feel like that would be ok.  You are throwing way to many hypothetical what ifs into a basic question.  How much wrong would you have to do to someone else that you would feel its justified for someone to take out your family.  Lets say you destroyed a person car and as retaliation they decided to take out your family.  Why would you care if someone else was indebted to the person asking them to kill your kids.  That statement doesn't make sense to the context of the original question since I stated the person asking someone to kill your kids not the person who did the crime.  

How much context do you need to justify anyone taking out your family.  The only way I can view your statement is just another way to not come to a decision.  For each question I ask, you keep moving the goal post so you do not have to answer it.  Like I said, you are just jerking my chain.

You just answered why. The fact that I posed those questions, and at least one made you explain how it would make the situation different, is the entire point. You were the one who was talking about how much, if any, would be more at fault between the killer and the person of influence. If the person who commits the act, isn't simply doing it because their a cold blooded killer, but because they stand to lose as much as you, or more, I would personally say that changes their level of fault in the scenario. The question you pose cannot be just a simple basic general question without me giving a simple basic generic answer, and I've already explained I can't do that because I believe it's not the case for every situation.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

If I wronged someone and they came for me you would have a case.  If I wronged someone and they decided to take it out on my family, why would anyone feel like that would be ok.  You are throwing way to many hypothetical what ifs into a basic question.  How much wrong would you have to do to someone else that you would feel its justified for someone to take out your family.  Lets say you destroyed a person car and as retaliation they decided to take out your family.  Why would you care if someone else was indebted to the person asking them to kill your kids.  That statement doesn't make sense to the context of the original question since I stated the person asking someone to kill your kids not the person who did the crime.  

How much context do you need to justify anyone taking out your family.  The only way I can view your statement is just another way to not come to a decision.  For each question I ask, you keep moving the goal post so you do not have to answer it.  Like I said, you are just jerking my chain.

You just answered why. The fact that I posed those questions, and at least one made you explain how it would make the situation different, is the entire point. You were the one who was talking about how much, if any, would be more at fault between the killer and the person of influence. If the person who commits the act, isn't simply doing it because their a cold blooded killer, but because they stand to lose as much as you, or more, I would personally say that changes their level of fault in the scenario. The question you pose cannot be just a simple basic general question without me giving a simple basic generic answer, and I've already explained I can't do that because I believe it's not the case for every situation.

You sure I answered why.  You gave so many excuses, I thought I would narrow down your rational to get you to actually make a decision instead of giving me a hundred what ifs as if anyone would care.  Since you appear to care about a thousand permutations, I thought it best to try to limit you to one dimension so I can get a direct answer.

Who cares if they did it because they are a cold bloodied killer or that they were confused or that they mistook you for someone else.  Who cares if they could lose as much as you  or they are a nice guy or feed the hungry.  Who cares if they are a priest or a teacher or any other excuse you can dream up to not answer a direct question.  The basic question, if someone ask another person to kill your kids DO YOU believe they are just as guilty as the person committing the crime.

In another effort to remove all excuses so what would you believe absolves a person from asking another person to kill your kids.  lets try the reverse psychology route.  So what scenario would you believe a person is not just as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime.  You can limit it to just one answer.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

You just answered why. The fact that I posed those questions, and at least one made you explain how it would make the situation different, is the entire point. You were the one who was talking about how much, if any, would be more at fault between the killer and the person of influence. If the person who commits the act, isn't simply doing it because their a cold blooded killer, but because they stand to lose as much as you, or more, I would personally say that changes their level of fault in the scenario. The question you pose cannot be just a simple basic general question without me giving a simple basic generic answer, and I've already explained I can't do that because I believe it's not the case for every situation.

You sure I answered why.  You gave so many excuses, I thought I would narrow down your rational to get you to actually make a decision instead of giving me a hundred what ifs as if anyone would care.  Since you appear to care about a thousand permutations, I thought it best to try to limit you to one dimension so I can get a direct answer.

Who cares if they did it because they are a cold bloodied killer or that they were confused or that they mistook you for someone else.  Who cares if they could lose as much as you  or they are a nice guy or feed the hungry.  Who cares if they are a priest or a teacher or any other excuse you can dream up to not answer a direct question.  The basic question, if someone ask another person to kill your kids DO YOU believe they are just as guilty as the person committing the crime.

In another effort to remove all excuses so what would you believe absolves a person from asking another person to kill your kids.  lets try the reverse psychology route.  So what scenario would you believe a person is not just as guilty as the person who actually committed the crime.  You can limit it to just one answer.

Like when Trump said 'I like a guy who can give a good body slam'. If someone went out and body slammed another politician and killed them, I would give Trump almost no blame, and the body slammer the overwhelming majority.

As for who cares, if the killer is mentally challenged/ill, are you really going to give them equal blame?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.