-
Features
Apparently you are now "racist" if you prosecute black shoplifters and assaulters
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
And you feel that explains the violence? Most normal people do not erupt into violence when someone refuses to leave.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
True, but evidence is essential to support such claims.
laughing dog
Contributor
Thanks for admitting you have been wasting everyone's time.
Note that I said "out of the blue". While apparently not justified this example is clearly not out of the blue.
Thank you for admitting you have no argument.
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you for providing more evidence you are incapable of following a discussion with comprehension.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of justice and not a waste of time.
laughing dog
Contributor
Unlike your irrelevant response, it is not a waste of time.
Why do you hold to such an outdated notion? Neither side wants it for the other these days.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
YOU didn't read the article:
And remember, according to you, since the police believed the customers in this case, the customers MUST be in the right.
You're right, and it is getting out of control. People also more and more strawman instead of strongman what those they disagree with say, to the point that they more and more often don't even really disagree and don't know it, and facts are shoved aside in favour of narrative. We see it on all sides as you noted.
And I think we are seeing it even more than we used to. Most convenient conservatives agree with Bernie Sanders on more than they think, and more liberals agree with Ben Shapiro (gasp) on more points than they think.
Also noticing a rise in people telling others what they are "actually saying" instead of responding to what they actually say. And telling people what they think based on some ambiguity, instead of asking for clarification. It makes productive conversation Impossible..You can see it everywhere, including conservative boards as well as right here. Alarming to see on a "freethought" forum.
I blame the internet and increasingly isolated and polarized media and the bubbles created. We used to live in geographic bubbles. Now we live in ideological bubbles.
How many of us actually go out of our way to truly leave our bubbles and echo chambers and truly hear and understand the "other side"? Not enough. How many take some points from each "side", play devil's advocate to themselves, challenge their own biases and ideas and form truly informed and nuanced independent views? It's getting very rare.
Last edited:
YOU didn't read the article:
And remember, according to you, since the police believed the customers in this case, the customers MUST be in the right.
Ok, you didn't understand my post.
I said shopkeepers don't attack customers out of the blue. Your example was not out of the blue.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
YOU didn't read the article:
And remember, according to you, since the police believed the customers in this case, the customers MUST be in the right.
Ok, you didn't understand my post.
I said shopkeepers don't attack customers out of the blue. Your example was not out of the blue.
Yes. It was.
Unless you think assaulting one's customers is the normal thing to do. Oh wait. You DO think that. You are defending Gibson's son for assaulting people, too.
Perfect example of what I was writing about above. Note how Ravensky didn't ask Loren to clarify, didn't ask him to explain what she sees as a conflict in his logic, and instead skipped to telling him what he is saying, taking not the most charitable interpretation but the least.
This is often where a shifting happens from the topic being discussed to the characters of the people speaking, and that ends all constructive conversation. I hope that isn't where this is going.
We can do better.
laughing dog
Contributor
Anyone who had actually read this thread would have known a number of people in this thread have asked LP to explain his "logic", but he refuses to do so. An alert reader might have recognized the annoyance driven sarcasm at the refusal. Which would have might have lead a disinterested and humble reader to concentrate refusal and its meaning instead of drawing inaccurate conclusions and engaging in condescending, biased preaching.
I think we ought to do better. Whether some of us have the capability to do better is an empirical question. Your post is evidence of my doubt.
He hasn't refused to do so. He has attempted to do so. He just hasn't done so to the satisfaction of those who have quickly resorted to
as you put it, which is only going to make it less likely, not more likely, for a person to keep trying to explain their view to those on another side of an issue who are unlikely or unwilling to understand it.
laughing dog
Contributor
His argument is based on his misuse of the term "out of the blue" (which means unexpectedly). Apparently everyone is capable of understanding that but you.
Apparently you do not understand "out of the blue".
Your case is someone who refused to leave--he had already tried words.