Reply With Quote
You entertained the notion that the perps in the OP were activists, so yes. You did.
You still think they could be BLM activists because of their "vigorous action."
did i ever imply that there were blm activists who routinely plan to assault and rob people as part of their campaign?
You entertained the notion that the perps in the OP were activists, so yes. You did.
You still think they could be BLM activists because of their "vigorous action."
when did i imply that they routinely planned to assault and rob people?
You implied this was their vigorous activism.
vigorous could just mean forceful or with a use of strength, which could describe the actions in the OP
i'll ask again, when did i imply that they routinely planned to assault and rob people?
By characterizing their actions as activism, genius.
ping pong
lol. its possible to be an activist and commit one assault. i never suggested that blm activists routinely planned to assault and rob people
Now see, that is the kind of fleshing out that was needed. Your original post didn't really go through any of this, so I had to guess what you meant/think. As you rightly pointed out I got it wrong.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 violence
Quite an impressive strawman coming from the guy who goes on and on about formal logical fallacies
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
Thank you for elaborating.
or you could try not creating strawmen next time
It isn't quite a strawman if the original assertions were rather poorly made.or you could try not creating strawmen next time
As noted, I had to guess, and said as much. I asked for some explanation, and, when none was forthcoming, took my best shot at addressing what I thought your point was, after I gave you a bit of time to outline it.
it absolutely is a strawman if i never said ANYTHING about blacks being disproportionally killed by police in this thread
I gave a day or two for a response, and admitted I didn't quite understand. Be happy to, and would prefer to, address your actual positions.
Again, thanks for clearing it up a bit.
Strawman:
my response timing is irrelevantA straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Sorry, questions aren't assertions. I was asking you, again, to flesh out what you meant, based on what I thought you said.
randomguy did you stop beating your wife?
you just randomly decided to ask a question like that (which had nothing to do with my point at all)?
You did. The only vigorous action here was the assault and robbery.
Be more careful next time.
Show me were I suggested that they routinely planned to commit assault
You tried to apply the definition.
You're free to back off it now.
You portrayed the assault as activism.
Your mistake.
No I didn't. I portrayed the men as possible activists. That doesn't mean everything they ever do falls under activism.
The only vigorous action you attributed to them was the assault and robbery and vigorous action was the only way you tried to define activism.
Your mistake.
Sure, you're correct there.
I never said or suggested they routinely planned assaults and robberies. You're mistaken there.
no you said that this one in particular was a BLM activist. you were trying the typical breitbart racist guilt by association schtick.
it's fairly typical for those feeling racial guilt to do that type of moral relativism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
