That's not the definition.
Sorry. You really tried this time, but you can't overcome your disingenuousness.
Thanks for proving it's not the definition.
But I will ask you directly: Do you believe they are BLM activists?
Yes or no.
The definition clearly includes "vigorous action" which you for some reason denied then tried to call me disingenuous
The disingenuous part is where you exclude everything else in the definition.
Now answer the question: Do you believe they are BLM activists?
This is twice I have asked you.
spurraider's 'law school' must be seeing how he cannot even argue and weigh semantics. He reads like a petulant child who insists there one way is the only way to look at something.
lol. if you want to say something, say it
i never said there is one way to look at it. in fact, i repeatedly asked chump to provide us with another definitionHe reads like a petulant child who insists there one way is the only way to look at something.
uh-huh and if you cannot figure out what I'm implying on your own youre an idiot.
i don't know. i don't think there's enough information to make that determination.
case closed. im moving on.
context would tell you i know exactly what you're implying. i want you to say it outright
suddenly my word is gospel. interesting development.
also, case closed? because there isn't enough information at the present time? how about just waiting to see if anything else comes out (not that i think this story is significant on a national scale, but just in principle). every story lacks some information as it develops, doesn't mean it's "case closed" and time to move on
Chumpdumper apologizes when someone spills water on him.
Hmm. Still not quite following your point.
You posted a big long picture that had the dictionary definition of "activist" and then didn't quite reference it or explain what it meant in reference to what was fairly obviously some snark.
I'm sure it all made sense in your head, and I kinda get it, but the whole thing was a bit ill-formed. No offense.
So to get to your point, poorly made as it is.
aka "activist is probably inaccurate" because it's not convenient for me
They weren't really "activists" by any reasonable definition of the word, including the one you gave here.
The use of the word was a dishonest attempt to discredit a social movement by taking the worst actions of someone vaguely taking about it and implying by vague association that people in that movement are all violent.
This is an example of "poisoning the well"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html
Does this mean somehow that black males aren't disproportionally and/or unnecessarily killed by the police?
You still need to flesh it out. Not that I expect you to, given your rather lazy posting style.
Another example of a poorly made point.
Clarity requires more than a sentence to flesh out complex ideas. Dog-whistle drive-bys and copy pasta are poor subs utes for original thinking, IMO.
I think it could certainly be argued that they were activists, particularly by the definition I posted. A "campaign" doesn't have to be a peaceful and respectable one. That said, I already opined that we don't know enough details to make the claim that they were blm activists, but I don't think it can be ruled out.
No. I didn't attempt to discredit the whole movement with this example. That's you connecting dots that aren't there. I never suggested that the larger blm body advocates this sort of violenceThe use of the word was a dishonest attempt to discredit a social movement by taking the worst actions of someone vaguely taking about it and implying by vague association that people in that movement are all violent.
This is an example of "poisoning the well"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html
Quite an impressive strawman coming from the guy who goes on and on about formal logical fallaciesDoes this mean somehow that black males aren't disproportionally and/or unnecessarily killed by the police?
You still need to flesh it out. Not that I expect you to, given your rather lazy posting style.
I have also opined that this story isn't relevant on a larger or national scale, and certainly not important enough to spend a lot of time discussing. I just thought it was wrong to claim "they aren't blm activists" when the definitions of activist doesn't really rule that out at all
If you can find examples of BLM activists who routinely plan to assault and rob people as part of their campaign to bring attention to the issue of blacks' being shot by police in disproportionate numbers, let us know.
That would be a national story.
I'm sure it would be.
So you don't have any?
Screw the victim in this story. We need to nail down the definition of "activist". SMH
No one here has said screw the victim or condoned the actions of the perpetrators, Darrin. Calm down.
i never indicated that i did or that i was interested in looking for one. so no.
Exactly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
