|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880330 - 08/14/20 03:31 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Or any of the times, for that matter.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880332 - 08/14/20 03:33 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
and a second video by serial liars Project Veritas.
This really shows Shiva's true colors. The point of Project Veritas is to infiltrate and expose and let people just talk and then show the world what they say.
What LIES? Everything I listen to on Project Veritas is just, "Here. Watch this video. Listen to what people in the actual organization have to say about it."
Calling them serial liars makes no rational sense, let alone moral sense.
Shiva must have me on ignore. How amusing.
Remember when project veritas falsely accused Roy Moore of sexual assault?
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26880341 - 08/14/20 03:39 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Antifa wear black specifically so they can commit crime and slip back into anonymity. I'm pretty sure there's some law that could infer everyone close that is wearing black is an accomplice to the crime. And if there isn't, there ought to be.
More batshit crazy shit from vahn
It's like he thinks people aren't capable of reading his exact words
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26880357 - 08/14/20 03:57 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: You aren't describing the general discourse - you've already stated that better responses exist, yet for some reason you won't include them in your consideration:
I thought I did include his evidence - the video of the protesters attacking the truck.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I already explicitly stated what constituted as make believe: the video "identifies the protesters as "peaceful Antifa BLM" despite nothing in the video providing for such an identification". This is relevant considering you suggested the video was brought force as evidence for Antifa™ being an organized domestic terror group, but without the make believe identification in the title there is nothing in the video connecting the protesters to Antifa™.
Ah, now I get your point. I thought you implied you knew these were antifa when you said "Hard-blockades will limit the maneuverability of protests - which is one of our strengths when resisting police forces." If that's not what you meant, then I assume the guy taking the video knew who he was with. Would you disagree?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: No comment on your decision to uncritically amplify the video by serial liars Project Veritas?
Where did I amplify the video by Project Veritas? I think you had a very good rebuttal.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880360 - 08/14/20 03:59 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
Ok, so if you agree that he could have been more clear, why did you initially state it was clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion?
Because to Falcon, it was obvious. Everyone else seems to need a little help and Falcon was giving you all the benefit of the doubt.
Correct.
Funny how you can often understand people's intent if you try.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880367 - 08/14/20 04:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Except when Nate was talking about murder
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26880395 - 08/14/20 04:20 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Funny how you can often understand people's intent if you try. 
Except when Nate was talking about murder
No, I thought I understood what Nate was talking about and tried to clarify things almost immediately. But he argued with me.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Homicide is defined as anything that leads to one human killing another. The type of homicide depends on the action that led to death, whether it was premeditated, etc.
At least thats how i understand it
Exactly. If the guy died, this wouldn't qualify as murder.
No, we dont agree.
You think it would have been murder if he died, meaning you think the cops had an intent to kill that guy?!?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26880408 - 08/14/20 04:29 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
My very next comment I said I should have said killing instead of murder. I acknowledged early on it was the wrong form of homicide.
A few pages ago you tried to say I claimed the cop intended to kill him even though you know that isnt what I intended to say. In fact, in the comment you linked I clearly said the intent of the officer didnt matter.
My original post of guigino and one punch homicide
Quote:
I can get murder charges for punching you in the face if you go down and crack your dome and die. It's called one punch homicide. I didnt intend to kill you but it happens.
That cop shoved an elderly man. What if I pushed your grandma and she fell and bust a hip? Would you say that I didn't actually push her that hard?
Old people have a hard time with balance and what not already, that cop is a piece of shit and everybody but you seems to get that.
You were trying to argue that it wasnt his intent to hurt him, I was simply trying to say that the intent to hurt him doesnt matter if he does in fact hurt him.
You ran with the semantics of one word for multiple pages in multiple threads.
Try debating honestly please just once
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880409 - 08/14/20 04:31 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Point is you knew what I was trying to say and you still argued it to death.
If you didnt understand what I meant by the comment I quoted above, then you are being woefully obtuse as it is very easy to see
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 41 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880414 - 08/14/20 04:37 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: You aren't describing the general discourse - you've already stated that better responses exist, yet for some reason you won't include them in your consideration:
I thought I did include his evidence - the video of the protesters attacking the truck.
I'm not saying you aren't including his weak evidence. My point is that you can't claim your conclusion that "Vahn is doing a better job defending his position than others have in attacking it" is "just describing the general discourse here" when you've explicitly acknowledged that better responses do exist as part of that general discourse:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Again, the question was if Vahn is doing a "better job defending his position than others have in attacking it" I would say yes.
I realize you take exception, because you yourself had a better response than others (as usual).
Moving on...
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I already explicitly stated what constituted as make believe: the video "identifies the protesters as "peaceful Antifa BLM" despite nothing in the video providing for such an identification". This is relevant considering you suggested the video was brought force as evidence for Antifa™ being an organized domestic terror group, but without the make believe identification in the title there is nothing in the video connecting the protesters to Antifa™.
Ah, now I get your point. I thought you implied you knew these were antifa when you said "Hard-blockades will limit the maneuverability of protests - which is one of our strengths when resisting police forces." If that's not what you meant, then I assume the guy taking the video knew who he was with. Would you disagree?
How exactly does that quote imply the presence of Antifa™? Here's the entire exchange - lots of discussion about protesters but nary a mention of Antifa™.
So instead you'll assume, first, that the uploader of the video is the person who filmed it; second, that the person filming was "with" the protest (and therefore privy to the identification of the group) rather than an outside observer. A casual glance at the youtube channel shows a trend in claiming videos from Portland to Indianapolis depict "Antifa BLM". The video description simply reading "Fuck antifa" and the video title that begins "Gross Antifa Commie" heavily suggests this is not an unbiased source. How did such make believe slip though your net?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: No comment on your decision to uncritically amplify the video by serial liars Project Veritas?
Where did I amplify the video by Project Veritas? I think you had a very good rebuttal.
When you explicitly, and uncritically, held up the Project Veritas video as an example of how Vahn421 is doing a good job in defending their position:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: As I told Vahn "You laid out a definition of terrorism in your OP to include "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and I've seen your videos (and I'm guessing he has too) where you allege they do just that."
Here's a few of those videos for reference:
Did I see evidence of violence and threats to intimidate? Yes. Did that prove Vahn's position beyond a doubt. No, of course not.
My claim was "he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it."
How did such make believe slip through your net?
And, once again, no comment on your make believe regarding the presence of question marks in the hypothetical/opinion?
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880418 - 08/14/20 04:38 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You took that quote in your reply out of context dude. I dont agree with anything you said in that argument regarding the cops conduct. And for the record enlil said it could be felony murder. Just sayin
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880423 - 08/14/20 04:42 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Try debating honestly please just once
He’s not capable
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880440 - 08/14/20 04:54 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: My very next comment I said I should have said killing instead of murder. I acknowledged early on it was the wrong form of homicide.
You were trying to argue that it wasnt his intent to hurt him, I was simply trying to say that the intent to hurt him doesnt matter if he does in fact hurt him.
You ran with the semantics of one word for multiple pages in multiple threads.
Try debating honestly please just once
Then I don't know why you were disagreeing with me. Now that you've clarified that murder was the wrong word, I think we're good.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: And for the record enlil said it could be felony murder. Just sayin
Yes, if they were able to argue an intent to kill. Are you starting the murder argument back up from the prior discussion?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26880460 - 08/14/20 05:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I'm not saying you aren't including his weak evidence. My point is that you can't claim your conclusion that "Vahn is doing a better job defending his position than others have in attacking it" is "just describing the general discourse here" when you've explicitly acknowledged that better responses do exist as part of that general discourse
I can (and did) say that. I'm really disappointed in how most other posters have responded to Vahn.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Moving on...
How exactly does that quote imply the presence of Antifa™? Here's the entire exchange - lots of discussion about protesters but nary a mention of Antifa™.
So instead you'll assume, first, that the uploader of the video is the person who filmed it; second, that the person filming was "with" the protest (and therefore privy to the identification of the group) rather than an outside observer. A casual glance at the youtube channel shows a trend in claiming videos from Portland to Indianapolis depict "Antifa BLM". The video description simply reading "Fuck antifa" and the video title that begins "Gross Antifa Commie" heavily suggests this is not an unbiased source. How did such make believe slip though your net?
Fair point. I hadn't read the YouTube information. This is how the discussion should go. Not post after post of "you're a big fat poo poo head" type posts, which others here have been doing.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: When you explicitly, and uncritically, held up the Project Veritas video as an example of how Vahn421 is doing a good job in defending their position
Not necessarily a "good" job, but better than "you're a big fat poo poo head".
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: And, once again, no comment on your make believe regarding the presence of question marks in the hypothetical/opinion?
I thought I commented here.
Maybe I'm not clear on your exact question. Don't forget, the title of the thread has question marks.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880475 - 08/14/20 05:24 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Felony murder doesnt require intent to kill.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880490 - 08/14/20 05:39 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed, though per Wikipedia it requires "foreseeable danger to life".
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 41 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880555 - 08/14/20 06:30 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Moving on...
How exactly does that quote imply the presence of Antifa™? Here's the entire exchange - lots of discussion about protesters but nary a mention of Antifa™.
So instead you'll assume, first, that the uploader of the video is the person who filmed it; second, that the person filming was "with" the protest (and therefore privy to the identification of the group) rather than an outside observer. A casual glance at the youtube channel shows a trend in claiming videos from Portland to Indianapolis depict "Antifa BLM". The video description simply reading "Fuck antifa" and the video title that begins "Gross Antifa Commie" heavily suggests this is not an unbiased source. How did such make believe slip though your net?
Fair point. I hadn't read the YouTube information. This is how the discussion should go. Not post after post of "you're a big fat poo poo head" type posts, which others here have been doing.
Why didn't you do your own due-diligence in basic fact-checking before making your conclusion? Same with the Project Veritas one. You just assumed the sketchy evidence Vahn421 provided, via YouTube video, didn't contain any make believe; and this is why people are pointing out that you hold a double-standard for make believe.
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: And, once again, no comment on your make believe regarding the presence of question marks in the hypothetical/opinion?
I thought I commented here.
Maybe I'm not clear on your exact question. Don't forget, the title of the thread has question marks.
You claimed that "Vahn's OP was primarily his prediction of a future state run by antifa, with a lot of question marks thrown in and him being clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion."
I examined the OP in question, and did not find a single question mark in their prediction - let alone lots thrown in.
Can you explain how you reached your conclusion? Are you suggesting that, since Vahn421 asked two discussion-creating questions (same two questions in OP title and body), we should interpret those two question marks as applying to their prediction?
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26880571 - 08/14/20 06:46 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with Falcon that Shiva provided a good rebuttal to Project Veritas. It sent me down quite the rabbit hole. I knew nothing about their founder and took the videos I've seen as my lens to judge their organization. Content over creator, essentially.
However, on that note, Shiva is being intellectually dishonest to dismiss all of their content as lies simply because their founder uses shady means to obtain his footage and doesn't always paint people in the best light. (And I can easily condemn those particular things, despite being a supporter of the kind of work people like this are trying to do: Exposure.) So far 7 out of 8 Project Veritas videos I've seen I've found to be quite revealing and not dishonest edits as I've seen a few claim. The one video I have seen so far I did not like, I commented on in my reply to Shiva. .
I'm going to admit, I have a real soft spot for this one and I get rather emotional about it. I think the mission of exposing the things people are dishonest about is super important. People gave their lives to Mormonism, my old religion, because they were fed a narrative of lies that was meant to inspire. When people tried to expose the lies, they were dealt with harshly by the church. Mormonism is doing everything it possibly can to keep their narrative up, throwing people under the bus in the process.
As I studied history more, I realized the people that have always been dealt with the worst in society are the ones that expose the lies of biased institutions. Back a millennia or two ago, they crucified heretics. There were no trials. Throughout all of history, those that could speak thoughtfully, clearly, and truthfully could and confound the narrative others that had monopoly on the way people thought... and those in power always dealt with those clever truth-speakers harshly.
Socrates was sentenced to death for the ideas he had.
Galileo was accused of hearsay by the Catholic Church for saying the sun revolved around the Earth.
People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die.
The exposing of the radical far-left and those that share a similar ideology is very important to me right now as an unaffiliated observer. I see no bigger threat to the future than them, currently. If the radical far right had more power and more influence over the course of where America's ship is about to sail, I'd turn my lasers on them... but they don't have that power. Their time is past. I spent plenty of time despising them back in the early 2000's. The wind has shifted and a new threat is here now.
So I'm glad that, regardless of who created the videos, we have the them now exposing some of the lies that we do... and I condemn the rest and hope in the future we can get more people doing exposure while being more selective about who to target.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 06:58 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880574 - 08/14/20 06:48 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880575 - 08/14/20 06:51 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You just assumed the sketchy evidence Vahn421 provided, via YouTube video, didn't contain any make believe; and this is why people are pointing out that you hold a double-standard for make believe.
Your assertion that a content creator that has historically not always been morally correct in his approach can't make good content *at all* is completely incorrect.
The videos speak for themselves most of the time. The majority I've seen and all the ones I care about are not edited unfairly. I've already commented on the video I saw I found unsavory.
Your claim to how the content ITSELF and not the CREATOR is incorrect needs evidence. So far all I have is evidence of a creator who sometimes goes too far. I think the videos are pretty telling and pretty accurate from what I've seen, and you dismissal of them due to who made them is not intellectually honest.
Coming back to Mormonism again, when I left the church my friends and family that were still members were taught not to listen to what I had to say because of my position However, if they could heard same thing I was saying to them from a Mormon who still chose to believe (but knew what I knew) they would accept it then... but something that is true is true regardless of who said it.
It's kind of like that with any sort of content, so I find your approach intellectually inconsistent.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 06:54 PM)
|
|