Reply With Quote
Answer his question or shut the up, got
It's true. Literally every time someone asks a question, Fuzzy got says that they are "begging the question" and then refuses to answer it.
Answer his question or shut the up, got
ahh yes the nihilist comes forth to froth. I did address the question head on; I explained it very clearly. If you are having trouble reading which post I explained that let me know and I'll repost it for you.
FuzzyLibcuck doing his usual routine when backed into a corner. Accuse anyone asking a question of "begging the question," refuse to answer the question, tell anyone who points this out that they're a "nihlist" who's "dissembling," claim he answered the question while still not answering it.
And you would think that at some point one of you would actually argue the fallacy on merit or simply stop asking me leading questions. Instead you act adolescent and talk about how a logical argument is 'name dropping' clique stupidity and call me names.
You don't have the capacity to argue on merit but you really want to argue so this is what we get. Your elitist dismissive tone is one of the more ironic things I have ever read.
Who taught you to read?
We have had other conversations and in that I think many of you are nihilist and stupid. I stand by that. I think many people here do not really believe in anything, are fond of infinite regression and base reasoning, and have poor reading and critical thinking skills. For example your ability to read what someone has written and report on it is very poor.
That's not an answer to his question, dumbass. But, but, muh logical fallacies
The only thing you've demonstrated is a misunderstanding of "begging the question" and considerable effort to avoid actually having a discussion on the subject when pressed with questions.
No it's more like everytime I bring up a logical fallacy the argument stops because people fixate on it. Every time you ask a leading, assumptive question I am not going to play along. Deal with it. Point it out to each other and stop going around in these same circles.
What is kinda amusing is that Chump is the one that is known for asking you guys questions that you dodge. Ridicule him for his bull socratic method and the like. Now many of you are channelling chump's method. ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Anywho, you agree that a question is not an argument and irrelevant to the discussion in its current form. Now we are back to you still not having a basis to make generalizations. Frankly, using personal anecdote as proxy for national behavior is prima facia nonsense. That has been my primary argument. Please come up with an actual argument this time or just leave it alone.
You brought up personal anecdotes not me. You tried to build a strawman by bringing up "my experience with campus police" just so you can strike it down.
My question is important to the conversation, and didn't contain the conclusion of my argument. That would have been begging the question
Spursraider, it's leading because you're not providing the answer to the statement. Therefore, it's asked in a way to make the reader assume that the number of deaths is much lower, as a percentage, than the number of arrests. Fuzzy is asking you to actually find the statistic and prove it, rather than asking in a way that makes an uninformed reader assume that your position is the correct one.
i didnt give a statement, i asked a question. if i knew the answer, i would post it, instead of asking it. if fuzzy doesnt know, thats fine, i hadn't looked it up either. but he can just say "i dont know" instead of dragging it on like he has
i'm trying to have a discussion on the issue, and he's insisting on treating it as formal debate and trying to "win" on technicalities or just crying "fallacy" even when it isn't there (like claiming i've relied on anectodes when i didnt bring it up)
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-29-2015 at 04:41 AM.
So you countered your argument. You said if victims "didn't resist, then they probably wouldn't have an problem with the cops. I gave several examples where there was little to no resistance and they were murdered by the cops. Jonathan Farrell was murdered by a rookie cop after flipping his car over in an accident and knocking on someones door for help ( the cop was later indicted for manslaughter and his family was rewarded $2.5 million).
I just find it curious that certain unarmed citizens get murdered by the police and mass murders (i.e. Roof and Lanza) are peacefully captured.
You still have no basis for making a generalization regarding police behavior. I was striking down personal anecdotes and they still form zero basis.
Your stat if you were to look it up may or may not say something. You have yet to say what it is nor why it is important.
I said the chances are slim to none, not zero
Stories of minorities getting harmed are dramaticized while stories of white victims are brushed under the rug
I never brought up a personal anecdote as a basis for you to strike down. If we switched positions, you would just scream "strawman" and stop discussing the topic
Self-appointed watchdogs of Texas police are in the streets and in your face
Lovett and his passenger, Kory Watkins, were out on patrol as part of North Texas Cop Block, the local chapter of a political coalition that has sprung up across the country alongside protests against police violence in Missouri, New York and Cleveland.
The national Cop Block campaign aims to police the police by filming traffic stops and watching for potential violations of search laws. Here in Arlington, the campaign has taken on a uniquely Texas spin.
With the two Texas activists in the cab of Lovett's big Chevy Tahoe, tickets and fines become "robbery," an arrest is "a kidnapping by the state," a concealed-handgun permit is "a tax on the 2nd Amendment." Laws are measured in increments of the rights they take away.
...
Cop Block activists around the country tend to have a common routine. At a police traffic stop, their first step is to pull out cellphones and yell instructions to people who have been pulled over.
That sometimes ends up with the activists getting arrested, as attested to dozens of times on YouTube, where police accountability groups gleefully post shouting matches between police and protesters.
We are normalizing people walking around with guns.- Kory Watkins, North Texas Cop Block
As in the Occupy movement, each Cop Block chapter relies on social media and bears the cultural markers of the places that birthed them. In Berkeley, accountability groups want a demilitarized police, and the fewer guns on all sides, the better.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...628-story.html
So I anticipated a common argument and you are not taking it. Fine.
No I don't think so. I can handle multiple conditional arguments concurrently. For example in addition to your complained strawman I have at the same time been arguing that you have no basis to make generalizations about police behavior. We could try more but you struggle addressing more than one thing.
OTOH, it certainly would be nice if police unions would off and all citizens once again have equal rights. You are not a cop are you? Your position makes no sense to me.
and what is my position, exactly. please, i'd love to hear this.
You have no basis for saying the bolded. This should not be hard.
It certainly appears much higher than "slim" tbh, yet they capture a terrorist who murdered nine and take him to burger king.
was he resisting arrest or did he give himself up peacefully? and if he's in the middle of a confession, you'd bet your ass they'd feed him. a $4 burger that potentially saves them years and a lot more $ down the line in court related costs
It's not so much this notion that the millions of cops in America all think with the same brain and can be judged so simply but it's more that an Armenian from the West Coast thinks he is a suitable spokesperson.
Were the police trained properly in appropriate use of force in various cir stances? Was the use of force commensurate with their training? Do LEOBOR laws make it make it more difficult to catch cops that break the law than normal citizens? What kind of accountability do officers face for breaking procedure and the law? Is there a conflict of interest inherent in the police investigating themselves? What are the national figures for police that break procedures and the law? How does it look regionally and demographically? Why are these figures unavailable to study?
The police were not trained properly in appropriate use of force in various cir stances. The use of force was not commensurate with their training. LEOBOR laws make it more difficult to catch and convict criminal police. The officers face no accountability from within the department. There is a definite conflict of interest in local prosecutors investigating their police force.
The 'was he resisting or not standard' is a red herring. If you want cops that get scared to not have to get charged for manslaughter or whatever vicarious ideal you are trying to save then you can have it but I am interested in getting the police back under control and accountable to the people they are supposed to protect and serve. There are many policies that are being ins uted across the nation. LEOBOR has been repealed or amended in several states. Executively independent offices and commissions are being set up to investigate police crimes.
I'm sure you guys were excited to hear that SCOTUS approved AZ districting agency. Racial gerrymandering is dead in one more state in the land.
nobody here can be a suitable spokesperson either. when you resist arrest or dont comply with police instruction, the chances of violence escalate... that isn't rocket science. thus, complying decreases your chances of being hurt.
the point of my question was to show that a vast majority of police interactions don't end with violence, and its reasonable to assume that proportionally speaking, you have more violent interactions when there is non-compliance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions