Invading the Capitol to protest the electoral vote certification (2016 edition)

[Angra Mainyu]

And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.

That is not remotely related to any of my responses. As I have been telling you, I was not challenging your claims about the motivation of the police officer. I was challenging your account of attributability.
Why did the police officer thought that?
I do not know the specifics. Obviously, some of the actions of some of the members of the mob prompted his assessment. Maybe he was right. Or maybe not. I am not in a position to ascertain that. It doesn't matter though. Stipulate any reason you want, and my argument remains the same.

Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.

But for that matter:

Let us take a look:

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

And:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

First, you say "That does not excuse their violence and destruction. ". The word "excuse" indicates you are making a moral assessment. And it is in that context where you want to make an attribution. One problem with that is that blameworthiness depends on the minds of the perpetrator, not on results. One could try a loose interpretation assuming results are just a way of indicating intent, but then we run into the problem that this is not attributable to them in that sense.



Second, again, by the wide definition of attributabiliy you give above, the those 5 deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral victory, as they would not have happened without it. But surely that is not what you wanted to say, right? You were implicitly limiting the scope of attributability, right?

If I'm wrong, why then, attribute the deaths to mob violence? What is the goal of it?

For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.

It's an analogy involving attributions. It's funny that you say war context is not relevant, but then dropping a ball context is relevant.

More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".

1. No obtuseness.
2. You misapplied it, as you did not use my reasoning.
3. Actually, that is what I did with the war context. We were giving examples, and you claimed that mine was idiotic. I pointed out it was not, and gave a relevant example. You dismiss it, but give an irrelevant ball example.

What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

 

[Jarhyn]

And why do you think the officer thought the mob was dangerous enough? From your responses, it seems you do think it is routine for US police to fire at will at people for whatever reason.
Apparently not, since your argument is not based on ordinary usage. I did not say "solely" or "only" attributable - which is ordinary usage in that context.

First, no, it is not idiotic.

We disagree.

It is accurate. For example, in a war, sometimes military personnel have a certain number of confirmed enemy kills, whether it's individual enemy combatantants or enemy ships or planes. That does not depend on which side started the war. The kills are attributed to those who, well, kill their enemies. They're not attributed to an enemy attack, which would clearly be a mistake.

For some inexplicable reason, you think some war context is relevant - it is not.

Second, no, that is not according to me. I never said anything about falling balls.

More obtuseness - I used an example and applied your "reasoning".

If you ask, I would intuitively assess the claim, as I always do. And I would say that whether it's attributable to gravity or to you depends on what we are focusing on, in context. For example, it's not the same if we are studying physics or trying to figure who damaged the car parked below, and on which a ball fell.

What caused the ball to fall is independent of what the ball ends up doing, so I conclude your response is nonsense. Balls falling are necessarily due to gravity. Without gravity, the ball would not necessarily fall, even if hurled down.

Like, I don't see how hard it is for such a "master debator" like AM to understand that the ball, on account of it's elevation, will fall. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. So sayeth Newton.

The agency of the person who holds it merely has control over *when*. So if you want to split a hair of technicality, you are the reason for WHEN the ball fell, not for the falling itself.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

Yes. With more "because Trump is a raging asshole" endpoints. But yes

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

Good one. Here's another one: Biden ran because Trump is the POTUS. But Trump would not be the POTUS if he did not exist. And he would not have existed if his parents had not had sex. So, the deaths are attributable to Trump's parents.

 

[laughing dog]

I do not know the specifics. Obviously, some of the actions of some of the members of the mob prompted his assessment. Maybe he was right. Or maybe not. I am not in a position to ascertain that. It doesn't matter though. Stipulate any reason you want, and my argument remains the same.

I agree - it remains wrong.

But for that matter:

Let us take a look:

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

And:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

First, you say "That does not excuse their violence and destruction. ". The word "excuse" indicates you are making a moral assessment. And it is in that context where you want to make an attribution. One problem with that is that blameworthiness depends on the minds of the perpetrator, not on results. One could try a loose interpretation assuming results are just a way of indicating intent, but then we run into the problem that this is not attributable to them in that sense.

I did not make any moral judgment with "attributable". If I had meant blameworthy, I would have used blameworthy.

Second, again, by the wide definition of attributabiliy you give above, the those 5 deaths are attributable to Biden's electoral victory, as they would not have happened without it. But surely that is not what you wanted to say, right? You were implicitly limiting the scope of attributability, right?

I am sorry I assumed that any reader would take the context to be what happened at the Capitol. But your conclusion is confused. Biden's electoral victory may have been the impetus for the protest but a protest does not require violence.

It's an analogy involving attributions. It's funny that you say war context is not relevant, but then dropping a ball context is relevant.

I didn't say it was relevant. I used the example to show the fallacy in your "reasoning".

1. No obtuseness.
2. You misapplied it, as you did not use my reasoning.

Nope to both.

3. Actually, that is what I did with the war context. We were giving examples, and you claimed that mine was idiotic. I pointed out it was not, and gave a relevant example. You dismiss it, but give an irrelevant ball example.

We disagree.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

First, the ball will not fall if one is in zero gravity. With gravity, the ball would fall because it was released and because of gravity. And as Jarhyn pointed out, the ball will fall eventually (due to physics). Hence your conclusion is very confused.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

If you give a mouse a term, he'll want a second term.
If it looks like you won't give him a second term,
...Yada, yada, yada....
he kills three followers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I agree - it remains wrong.

No, it remains correct.

I did not make any moral judgment with "attributable". If I had meant blameworthy, I would have used blameworthy.

You used the attribution to in the context of making such an judgment, clearly. You would not have said something like 'That does not excuse Biden's running for office. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to his running for office', even though by your own account 'by definition' the deaths can be attributable to his running for office - and even to him -, as per your theory of attributability, namely:

Sure, the deaths would not have happened without the mob violence.

Then by definition, the deaths can be attributable to them.

Rather, you were making a point about the mob violence that you were morally condemning. That is why you said

That does not excuse their violence and destruction. And we know that 5 deaths are attributable to this mob violence - one law enforcement officer, one at the hands of law enforcement and apparently three due to some sort of health problem.

Otherwise, why would you make such a claim? Why would you say it's "attributable" to mob violence but not, say, to Biden's victory, or Biden's run, or to people who voted for Biden, or to Trumps parents for having sex, or whatever other causes? No, you said that because you were saying not that it was just attributable by that theory - which is absurdly broad in this case -, but rather, because you considered it attributable in the relevant sense in context, namely in the context of morally condemning the protesters.

I am sorry I assumed that any reader would take the context to be what happened at the Capitol. But your conclusion is confused. Biden's electoral victory may have been the impetus for the protest but a protest does not require violence.

That is irrelevant. It would not have happened without it. I'm going by your own theory of attributability. Now you are saying it's in the context of what happened at the Capitol. But if it's attributable to any number of other things, why limit it there? No, the context is a moral judgment. Your theory of attribution 'by definition' does not include a definition limited to the Capitol, which would not make sense anyway. Moreover, you also did not say "That does not excuse the police using live ammo. And we know that 1 death is attributable to this use of live ammo'. You did not say 'This does not excuse resisting the mob. And we know of at least 1 death attributable to this resistence', or anything like that.

I didn't say it was relevant. I used the example to show the fallacy in your "reasoning".

There was no fallacy. I was debunking your claims that it was idiotic by using similar examples.

We disagree.

Sure. And for good reason I disagree with your claims, as explained.

Your conclusion is confused. Of course the ball would not have fallen without gravity. But then, also it would not have fallen without you dropping it. When we ask for the causes, or to what/whom we attribute the fall of the ball, we intuitively consider context. If we are studying physics, the relevant cause is gravity. If we are trying to figure who damaged the car parked below the window (and on which a ball fell), the relevant cause it the person dropping it.

First, the ball will not fall if one is in zero gravity. With gravity, the ball would fall because it was released and because of gravity. And as Jarhyn pointed out, the ball will fall eventually (due to physics). Hence your conclusion is very confused.

Actually, your reply does not even address my assessment. You're attacking a position that has nothing to do with mine - as you should understand reading my posts.

So, yes, your reply is confused.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rex Huppke does a pretty good caricature of Republican "thought."

 

[laughing dog]

No, it remains correct.


You used the attribution to in the context of making such an judgment, clearly....

As I have said already, I did not. Yet you continue to claim that you know my intent and meaning. You have misinterpreted my post. Nothing shameful about that. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Get over it.

The entire foundation for your argument is your demonstrated unfounded confidence in your infallibility in divining the intent of a post. I am not insisting that you mean something different from your intentions by the use of the term "attributable". Nor am I insisting your usage is wrong. I am simply disputing your invalid claims about my reasoning and post. Instead of insisting that some poster agree with your unilateral and idiosyncratic interpretation, let it go. I know I am.

 

[TomC]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

I was just trying to follow the logical machinations being presented in this thread.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

Yes. UnConstitutional. Undemocratic. Anti-American. Yes. And it's also OBVIOUS. Obvious to anyone who hasn't absorbed decades of poisonous right wing rhetoric. You really can't reason with anyone who accepted "Stop the Steal". They have walled themselves off from rational discussion. Most of them are sated on a diet of Fox News and crazy-ass social media. They believe only certain sources: radical Republicans, Q, bloated horrors like Trump and Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani, bloated broadcasters like Limbaugh and Sean and Tucker. And all those entities are now chained to the stupidest chunk of the American electorate, whom they can no longer control. Talk about fucked! Some of the more violent among them will no doubt commit cowardly crimes, and some may force a situation where they are shot dead.
Agreeing with everything you said, and said well. Not able to see a short-term improvement in the USA. We have a beautiful country (the parts we haven't stripped mined or overly urbanized.) We have a vibrant culture. We have diversity and some of the best universities in the world. And yet, increasingly in my life span, we are a society of inequity and radicalized politics. If Trumpism turns out to be a big beached whale in the next year or so, that will be some kind of turnaround. Who knows. This is a traumatized moment, and it's hard to make good predictions.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've not bothered reading this whole thread, so maybe I'm repeating someone.
I hope so.

In 2016, the EC was preparing to install the second place finisher in the election as POTUS. Considering how much true blue Americans tout democracy as our ideal, it's a mistake to think it's true, but an understandable mistake.

2020 was completely different. Biden won by ~7,000,000 votes. Two months and multiple court cases going all the way to SCOTUS produced no credible evidence to the contrary. What Congress was doing was certifying the results from the state legislatures. The state legislatures are the elected officials in charge of deciding who to send to the EC.
The EC was installing the candidate who The People voted for.

Trying to stop that from happening isn't just unConstitutional. It's undemocratic. It's anti-American.
It's flat out treason.
Tom

Yes. UnConstitutional. Undemocratic. Anti-American. Yes. And it's also OBVIOUS. Obvious to anyone who hasn't absorbed decades of poisonous right wing rhetoric. You really can't reason with anyone who accepted "Stop the Steal". They have walled themselves off from rational discussion. Most of them are sated on a diet of Fox News and crazy-ass social media. They believe only certain sources: radical Republicans, Q, bloated horrors like Trump and Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani, bloated broadcasters like Limbaugh and Sean and Tucker. And all those entities are now chained to the stupidest chunk of the American electorate, whom they can no longer control. Talk about fucked! Some of the more violent among them will no doubt commit cowardly crimes, and some may force a situation where they are shot dead.
Agreeing with everything you said, and said well. Not able to see a short-term improvement in the USA. We have a beautiful country (the parts we haven't stripped mined or overly urbanized.) We have a vibrant culture. We have diversity and some of the best universities in the world. And yet, increasingly in my life span, we are a society of inequity and radicalized politics. If Trumpism turns out to be a big beached whale in the next year or so, that will be some kind of turnaround. Who knows. This is a traumatized moment, and it's hard to make good predictions.

Like, I don't even get it... It's like the Skeksi from The Dark Crystal. Not only are these disgusting horrors barely resembling homosapiens, but their evil inside matches the disgusting, bloated exteriors. Yet people worship them as nigh upon gods.

I just don't get who would look at Cheeto and Darth Turtle and say "yeah, that's my ticket".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, to sum up:

The woman died because the officer shot her. The officer shot her because a mob had stormed the Capitol. The mob stormed the Capitol because Biden won the election. Biden won the election because he ran for President. Biden ran for President because Trump is a raging asshole.

Ok. So Trump's fault the woman died. Got it.

You're missing the much more direct path that His Flatulence encouraged the coup attempt.

I was just trying to follow the logical machinations being presented in this thread.

Actually, the "logical machinations" in that context were a way of debunking a claim about attributability "by definition" (see laughing dog's posts).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I have said already, I did not. Yet you continue to claim that you know my intent and meaning. You have misinterpreted my post. Nothing shameful about that. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Get over it.

But that did not happen. Rather, I debunked some of your claims about attributability (see the exchange for details).

The entire foundation for your argument is your demonstrated unfounded confidence in your infallibility in divining the intent of a post.

Not at all. I use the content of the post and reason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 31374
So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

Attack. Seditious terrorist attack.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 31374
So, we have hundreds of people in this riot.
They brought their own phones.
They took their own pictures, published them published their plans
Travel yyo and from the site under their own names, using their own credit cards.
Being identified right and left by being all over the 'Net and television, being picked up in droves...
And not one, to my knowledge, would have gotten away with it except for a microchip planted in their vaccine...

Attack. Seditious terrorist attack.

Putsch.