Rug Burn Junky on 11/1/2011 at 21:30
But it is defined by context. He meant one very specific thing. That one very specific thing mischaracterizes the debate, and I called him on his bullshit. End of story, and it needs no further justification since it's self evident in the text, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out.
Now fuck off, because you're clearly motivated solely by your hatred of me in persisting in this.
Stitch on 11/1/2011 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Kolya
And you Stitch, are justifying his aggressive antics because "America has a genuine problem of escalating violent rhetoric". No, makes perfect sense.
You're in a little over your head on this one, dude. Nowhere did I defend RBJ's "aggressive antics," merely his central point (which is a valid one that needs to be made), and by likening his admittedly insulting speak to the kind of "government is the problem and your gun is the solution" rhetoric that has been rising in America recently you betray your ignorance on this topic.
Which is fine, as it ultimately amounts to local US news, but you won't gain a better understanding of the issue by defending the likes of CCCToad.
Quote Posted by Queue
Yeah, I deleted that after figuring I was being too much of an asshole. Sorry about that, Stitch. Glad to hear they're okay.
I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not and decided you deserved the benefit of the doubt.
Aja on 11/1/2011 at 21:32
Quote Posted by Kolya
A "contribution" in normal speech can be essential or not. That quality isn't defined in the word.
Yes but, as you say, it was bleeding obvious in his post what he meant.
Kolya on 11/1/2011 at 22:01
Cool. Let's go back in time.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I still have a hard time buying the idea that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, that this wouldn't have happened. Granted that Sarah Palin loves to generate hype for herself by auditioning for the Jeff Foxworthy show, but its more symptomatic of the "proud to be a redneck" mentality that permeates the far right and it still pales in comparison to the calls to assassinate Bush and an NPR producer stating that she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch [Limbaugh's] eyes bug out” should he have a heart attack.
Ultimately, saying that this is all the fault of whatever Right or Left wing politician you hate the most is a shallow and simpleminded way of looking at things. And much easier to deal with. The reality is that the causes are in issues that have no simple solution: increased rates of mental illness in America, misuse of weapons, possible upbringing, and a political culture that has degenerated into being , polarized, emotional and hysterical. Every so often these conditions coalesce into a single point of violence.
Am I saying that we should just fix our issues and we will be in nirvana? You'd be an idiot to assume I mean that. My point is simply that America's cultural deterioration creates conditions more likely to result such acts.
edit: another article : (
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers)
Not really sure what the point of this bill (as advertised) is. Threatening somebody or inciting violence is already interpreted as having no First amendment protections.
So what he's so bleeding obviously saying here is that he believes Palin isn't the real reason behind this attack. Which is the same
as all of you think. However CCC does not distance himself from it CORRECTLY. Terrible mistake. He misunderstands someone saying that Palin contributed to the attack as it being the essential cause. Or maybe he exaggerates to make your point. Whatever.
A normal explanation at this point isn't enough anymore. After all he's CCCToad and you don't really want him to be on your side anyway. So attacking him suddenly becomes an unimpeachable argument, his posts become worthless irrelevant debate clutter and not insulting him becomes pretending he was right.
And that my friend is how you create escalating violent rhetoric.
Sulphur on 11/1/2011 at 22:09
So, in summation, what Kolya is saying is that CCCToad is eventually going to get shot. Man, will he ever catch a break
Bluegrime on 11/1/2011 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Do as you please, so long as you recognize that you were wrong, and that my point stands unmolested.
Your point was an ad-hominem attack on CCCToad for having an opinion. I was incorrect in my linking to the article from 2008 but stand by everything else I said. CCC's post wasn't offensive and nothing he said justified trying to slam him like that. There are indeed people who think Palin is traceable as the root of this assassination (I've met them and discussed it with them, and some of them are quite stupid.), politics is a mass of venom and spite for your countrymen, and nothing he said stood out as rhetorical thread shitting.
Also, @Stitch.. What part of CCC's post offended you? I'm not asking this out of hostility I'm just curious what he did.
Rug Burn Junky on 11/1/2011 at 22:21
You couldn't be more wrong.
In discussing Palin's culpability, he starts with a premise ("if it weren't for those rascally kidsSarah Palin, none of this would have happened.") He then refutes that premise, by using other tangentially related false premises ("this is the same as Jeff Foxworthy") and other less controversial statements upon which most of us agree ("it's more complex than that, and his mental illness plays a role").
BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME POINT THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DISCUSSING. So, by beginning with the false premise, and knocking *that* down, it is an attempt to knock down the real premise ("her inflammatory rhetoric is culpable, whether or not it is causative in this particular instance"), which he notably avoids.
This is the very definition of a strawman. And it is fucking up this thread almost as much as you are.
Stitch on 11/1/2011 at 22:41
Quote Posted by Kolya
And that my friend is how you create escalating violent rhetoric.
This is doing your argument no favors.
Kolya on 11/1/2011 at 23:03
I don't need favours. You've been acting opportunistic because you dislike CCCToad. But he's a member of this forum just like you are and he didn't do anything to you.
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
So, by beginning with the false premise, and knocking *that* down, it is an attempt to knock down the real premise
So it was a hidden attempt to knock down the correct argument by avoiding it. Notably. What a tricky bastard.
Rug Burn Junky on 12/1/2011 at 00:05
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
Your point was an ad-hominem attack on CCCToad for having an opinion.
Do you even know what an ad hominem is? Because if you did, you'd know that this is blatantly wrong on its face. I've spelled out in tedious detail why he's incorrect. And I and others have spelled out why this mistake is damaging to the discourse on the subject. That ain't an ad hominem, sorry bub.
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
I was incorrect in my linking to the article from 2008 but stand by everything else I said.
And everything else you said is still wrong. It's based off of the same false premise that CCCPoad relied in: that people are saying "if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, that this wouldn't have happened"
The guy CCCToad heard on the radio? Didn't say it.
Jane Fonda? Didn't say it.
Howard Stern? Didn't say it
Matt Lewis of Politics Daily? Didn't say it.
Greg Guftifeld of the Huffington Post? Didn't say it.
Ron Bynum of the Examiner? Didn't say it.
And really, since the last two of these articles predated the shooting, I'm beginining to think that you didn't even read them, and certainly impeaches your credibility when it comes to parsing what they said. Since you can't even keep it straight when offering statements in support of your conjecture, don't you think it's a touch likely that you may be wrong in general? Cuz I sure as hell do.
Quote Posted by Kolya
So it was a hidden attempt to knock down the correct argument by avoiding it. Notably. What a tricky bastard.
Ummm, that's exactly what a strawman is. Your attempt at dismissive sarcasm is cute, but you just Wiley E Coyoted yourself off of that cliff there.
