Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Exemplification of the PHONIESS of the left.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Unless you refer to Fox and breitbart, that is just absurd. What we have is a president and an administration that pushes up so brashly against fundamental moral boundaries and expectations for government
    That is precisely what is at issue here. Others disagree with you, to a greater of lesser degree. To argue that 'the media reports negatively on Trump, because he is so bad' is here begging the question. How do we know Trump is so bad? In large part, because of what and how the media reports. That's where we get most of our information about Trump's words and actions. But if the media is distorting things, then our perception of Trump is also distorted. I think it clear that the media is often distorting or even misrepresenting things. You can see that in Breitbart and Fox, but you overlook it in the channels that are 'against' Trump. But they are biased too.

    What is needed is an objective evaluation of what Trump says and does, and a similar evaluation of how the media reports on that.



    Originally posted by oxmixmudd
    that what must be reported about him is almost universally negative. If the input is nearly always negative, then an unbiased reporting engine will also generate a nearly always negative output. Bias is not determined by the output, but the relationship between the input and the output.


    The problem rogue is that you refuse to acknowledge how often what Trump does crosses red-line boundaries of morality and integrity in governance. These things MUST be reported or the free press is no longer the free press.
    They must be reported truthfully, without spin or bias, or an agenda. Which, too often, we do not get. It goes both ways - there are outlets that favour Trump, and there are outlets that spin against him. I want to know what he actually says and does, in context and without attempts to influence my judgment.

    I don't see that kind of actual journalism or reporting anywhere. I have tried in the past to go over some news items with you and evaluate the bias and spin, and try to dig down to what was actually said, but you don't seem interested. I can only conclude that you are currently extremely prejudiced against Trump, and unwilling to even attempt to interpret anything he says or does charitably.

    Can you not see that (a) the truth, whether it paints Trump in a good or bad light, is what matters most of all; (b) it can be both - Trump might be a bad person and a bad President, AND the media be biased and distort their reporting (see here for the start of a discussion of some of the ways this happens)?



    Originally posted by Trump
    One would think that the objective nature of a virus like covid-19 which can be evaluated according to the science and scientific principles would bring into focus, and least for those somewhat trained in the sciences, just how ridiculously biased Trump and his supportive sources are. They along with Trump have spread lies and misinformation about this virus, how it behaves, its mortality, its infection rate, what we need to do in response to it. OTOH, In what you call "A propaganda wing" are the FACTS and the actual analysis of the data and medical doctors and scientists on the front lines of this situation.

    And yet, you are unmoved. And yet, you still can write the above.

    And yet you handwave away instances of media distortion and bias against Trump - please don't say 'there are none' - which damages your credibility. Severely.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      That is precisely what is at issue here. Others disagree with you, to a greater of lesser degree. To argue that 'the media reports negatively on Trump, because he is so bad' is here begging the question. How do we know Trump is so bad? In large part, because of what and how the media reports. That's where we get most of our information about Trump's words and actions. But if the media is distorting things, then our perception of Trump is also distorted. I think it clear that the media is often distorting or even misrepresenting things. You can see that in Breitbart and Fox, but you overlook it in the channels that are 'against' Trump. But they are biased too.

      What is needed is an objective evaluation of what Trump says and does, and a similar evaluation of how the media reports on that.





      They must be reported truthfully, without spin or bias, or an agenda. Which, too often, we do not get. It goes both ways - there are outlets that favour Trump, and there are outlets that spin against him. I want to know what he actually says and does, in context and without attempts to influence my judgment.

      I don't see that kind of actual journalism or reporting anywhere. I have tried in the past to go over some news items with you and evaluate the bias and spin, and try to dig down to what was actually said, but you don't seem interested. I can only conclude that you are currently extremely prejudiced against Trump, and unwilling to even attempt to interpret anything he says or does charitably.

      Can you not see that (a) the truth, whether it paints Trump in a good or bad light, is what matters most of all; (b) it can be both - Trump might be a bad person and a bad President, AND the media be biased and distort their reporting (see here for the start of a discussion of some of the ways this happens)?






      And yet you handwave away instances of media distortion and bias against Trump - please don't say 'there are none' - which damages your credibility. Severely.
      I dont handwave away anything, but sonevof your more recent posts show you are not even the slightest bit interested in whether or not my opinions are based on truth. So if you actually have a motive beyond an opportunity for the sort of spiteful slam you posted a day or so ago, you'll need to show me you are actually listening to what I say and offer clearly thought out responses that pick up on what I'm actually saying.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I dont handwave away anything, but sonevof your more recent posts show you are not even the slightest bit interested in whether or not my opinions are based on truth. So if you actually have a motive beyond an opportunity for the sort of spiteful slam you posted a day or so ago, you'll need to show me you are actually listening to what I say and offer clearly thought out responses that pick up on what I'm actually saying.

        Spiteful slams aren't the exclusive territory of everyone else apart from you on this board. If I crossed a line and made you upset, I apologise for that.

        Ox, you are very ready to 'call out' people supporting something you see as immoral and wrong - why can't I do the same? If I think you have done something immoral or wrong, why can't I use strong language - like you do - to call you out on that? It's not like you think that you alone are right about everything, is it?

        So why do you take it so personally when someone calls you out for your support of half-truths and falsehoods, for your pushing of divisive and damaging agendas and so on? Obviously you disagree, you feel that your views are correct, and moral. But so does the person who disagrees with you - they think their views are correct and moral, too.

        When you attack their morality - the whole 'how can anyone be a Christian and support X' thing - you are showing a fundamental disrespect for them as a person. If they are wrong, then reason with them, give them data, show them why your view is true. The issue is NOT who is better following Jesus - since both parties think they are doing that - the issue is 'what are the actual truths of the matter'?

        You are very quick to make a judgment of a matter. Other people want to take more time, to gather more data, and to think things over before they decide what their conclusion is. But when they do that, you rush in and imply that they are supporting evil simply because they have not yet come to the same conclusion you have.

        Look at your posts in the Arbery thread. This from your very first post, on the first page of the thread:

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd
        Although that rhetoric has been used as a defense, nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it.
        Littlejoe's post was a summary of some of the then known facts of the case - you implied it's just rhetoric. Instead of disputing the facts you imply that Littlejoe isn't interested in them.

        You then imply that posters are attempting to 'justify his murder' - implying a lack of honesty on the part of people who might not (yet) agree with you, BEFORE you have even heard or responded to them.

        That closes off discussion by creating two sides right from the get-go: (1) those who 'rightly and rigtheously' think it was an unjustifiable murder - oxmixmudd and all the good people, and

        (2) anyone who dares to hold a different opinion, or wants more data, or just suspends judgment. The bad people, evidently.

        You didn't even attempt to address any of the facts that Littlejoe offered, - except perhaps the last one - to put them in a different light, to explain why they are not relevant, to challenge them with other evidence.


        If you choose not to listen to me because you feel I have attacked you personally, or implied you are in some way morally defective, or think that I don't listen, then by that same standard no-one here has any need to listen to you.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #49
          I will try to address this in good faith:

          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          Spiteful slams aren't the exclusive territory of everyone else apart from you on this board. If I crossed a line and made you upset, I apologise for that.
          Thanks for your apology..

          Ox, you are very ready to 'call out' people supporting something you see as immoral and wrong - why can't I do the same? If I think you have done something immoral or wrong, why can't I use strong language - like you do - to call you out on that? It's not like you think that you alone are right about everything, is it?
          I have no problem with "I think THIS is wrong.". I do get tired of (paraphrase of several posts from several people) "YOU are a hypocrite and scum, a false Christian". The more towards the former a post is, the more likely I am to take it seriously. The more towards the latter a post is, the more likely I am to dismiss it as a manifestation of hate. So to the extent your 'strong language' tends towards the former, I fully support your right to do so, and intend to take such comments seriously. But I will not take seriously posts that tend to the latter. Nor will I acknowledge anyone's (including my own) right to post that way.

          So why do you take it so personally when someone calls you out for your support of half-truths and falsehoods, for your pushing of divisive and damaging agendas and so on?
          I don't take personally a person thinking I'm supporting half-truths or falsehoods - when the topic is the ideas they believe are half-truths and falsehoods. What I take personally are attacks on my person. Personal attacks are meant to be taken personally, and its a bit disingenuous to fault the target for taking them so. If a person doesn't want me to take a post 'personally', then don't make it about my person.

          Obviously you disagree, you feel that your views are correct, and moral. But so does the person who disagrees with you - they think their views are correct and moral, too.
          I have my doubts it is symmetric. When a person must resort to comments like "You are a hypocrite", I tend to believe they don't actually believe their views are correct and moral. Not only that, they don't like having that brought into focus, and so they resort to the age old retort that I am not sufficiently good to be allowed to point out the conflict.

          Try me out max. If you think I am saying or supporting something morally wrong, instead of attacking me personally, discuss the deed (or words) directly and in a context of what we as Christians should be about. See what sort of response you get. If I lash out at you like others lash out at me, then you have a point. But If I take you seriously and discuss your point of view and my own rationally, then - as I said - you can know the situation is not, in fact, symmetric.

          When you attack their morality - the whole 'how can anyone be a Christian and support X' thing
          It's been a while since I used those words directly. So I think you are speaking from posts long past, some of which I've apologized for. At this point, I mostly don't try to characterize the rightness or wrongness of something in terms of what Jesus taught, especially (and ironically) if the person on the other end is a Christian.

          - you are showing a fundamental disrespect for them as a person. If they are wrong, then reason with them, give them data, show them why your view is true. The issue is NOT who is better following Jesus - since both parties think they are doing that - the issue is 'what are the actual truths of the matter'?

          Not discounting my comment above (IOW, at this point I avoid this), I still tend to believe calling to attention a clear divide between the teachings of Christ and a person's words is a valid response. From me or to me. The writer's in scripture do it, and they in fact command us to do it one to another. So, if there is a better way for me to word such a response, I'm all ears. But I disagree it is an inappropriate thing to do. As an aside, my understanding of scripture on this point is correcting a brother is a necessary thing - for them, for all of us. It is supposed to help keep us all on the right path, only this place has very few humble enough to accept correction of any kind. As an aside, I have not quite figured out the private vs public part. At first I did literally what scripture says, but using PM I was almost universally privately skewered for it without the attenuation a public post would require. So the next step - given there are no 'elders' as it were, is to respond publicly. Most of the time now I just don't even try the PM phase.

          But, as I said, mostly now I don't even try the 'this is not a Christian way of thinking'. There are none here who will respond positively to that. The sad reality is, on TWEB, in CIVICS, to call attention to the fact Christ or scripture teaches contrary to what is being said on any given subject is to evoke -from the Christians here- the most hostile response that they are capable of without violating forum protocol.


          You are very quick to make a judgment of a matter. Other people want to take more time, to gather more data, and to think things over before they decide what their conclusion is. But when they do that, you rush in and imply that they are supporting evil simply because they have not yet come to the same conclusion you have.

          Look at your posts in the Arbery thread. This from your very first post, on the first page of the thread:
          (included for context)

          Originally posted by oxmixmudd
          lthough that rhetoric has been used as a defense, nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it.

          Originally posted by Maxvel
          Littlejoe's post was a summary of some of the then known facts of the case - you implied it's just rhetoric. Instead of disputing the facts you imply that Littlejoe isn't interested in them.

          You then imply that posters are attempting to 'justify his murder' - implying a lack of honesty on the part of people who might not (yet) agree with you, BEFORE you have even heard or responded to them.
          Yes and no. To back up just a bit and set a context: It is fairly well known that a common defense strategy in a rape case is to make it at least partially the women's fault. "She was acting slutty. She was flirting with him. She has had sex with a lot of men". The point is to try to say the rapist had less culpability in the rape because she was sending mixed messages, or because she generally is loose with men anyway, or that maybe she's lying about the fact he raped her after all.

          The general trend in the arbery thread you are quoting is paint Arbery as having had run-ins with the law, as having a temper etc all playing into that very same mindset. Somehow it is partially Arbery's fault. Somehow these men might have been justified to go after him and Arbery's death was somehow just an unforeseen consequence of a justifiable action. This is what focusing on Arbery's potential questionable behavior does - whether the people doing it intend that as a consequence or not.

          This has been my point all along. People here don't really understand what they are doing. They don't understand how they are playing into racial stereotypes. How they are being manipulated by them through the conservative media sources that appear to drive their arguments (in that their arguments match those of those sources). My point in the comment above is to make the point that - given there were 3 men pursuing a black man, two armed, when there was no active crime involved that could justify such a pursuit, these other things just don't matter. And all that pointing them out does is take the attention off the illegal actions of the pursuers and place blame on the man killed. AFAIK, the only thing that could possibly matter in this case would be concrete evidence these men observed him committing a felony, or where told directly by an immediate eyewitness of that same felony..

          For example, in this latest police murder of George Floyd in Minnesota - does it matter even a little bit if Floyd was in fact the person that tried to pass a counterfeit bill per the call they were answering? Here it is much more clear. And here, again, we see that in the police report an attempt was made to shift blame to Floyd by claiming he resisted arrest, only the video of the event shows no such attempt to resist arrest that could justify the force used against him, especially for a sufficient duration of time to kill him. Similarly, in the Arbery case attempts were and are made to shift blame to him by claiming he was in the house. In the end, no crime worthy of pursuit was ever committed, and so it just doesn't matter - except for the purpose of shifting blame.


          That closes off discussion by creating two sides right from the get-go: (1) those who 'rightly and rigtheously' think it was an unjustifiable murder - oxmixmudd and all the good people, and

          (2) anyone who dares to hold a different opinion, or wants more data, or just suspends judgment. The bad people, evidently.

          You didn't even attempt to address any of the facts that Littlejoe offered, - except perhaps the last one - to put them in a different light, to explain why they are not relevant, to challenge them with other evidence.
          I did address those facts Max, but not as you were expecting. I addressed them by saying the circumstances make them irrelevant.

          That one line is not my entire post. I said they don't matter wrt the case. I said it does not matter if they are true. IOW, The only fact that matters is that there was nothing done that could justify armed pursuit. Those other facts are only being talked about as a means to shift blame from the killers to Arbery.

          But Arbery X,
          But Arbery Y.

          See - there is no denying that consciously or unconsciously these other facts serve only one purpose, to shift blame from the men who killed him to Arbery.

          Here is littlejoe's post:

          Originally posted by littlejoe
          There's a lot more to the story than a black man killed while jogging. That narrative is pretty old now. He was seen/caught trespassing in a home under construction, in a neighborhood that had experienced a rash of burglaries and he ran away when he was discovered. 911 was called and 2 men attempted to stop him and detain him until the police arrived. One of the men was a retired Police officer and had a license to carry a gun. Ahmaud stupidly (IMO) attacked and attempted to wrestle the gun away and was shot multiple times.

          Lot's of things went horribly wrong here with a lot of mistakes on both sides.
          here is the entirety of my response, not just the one sentence:

          Originally posted by oxmixmudd
          Although that rhetoric has been used as a defense[of the pursuit sic], nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it. If you think someone is behaving suspiciously, pull out your cell and call the police. And you don't draw your gun on someone as a civilian UNLESS they threaten you first or they are in your house. If I was being detained by two citizens toting guns I would be afraid for my life, and that will provoke 'fight or flight'. Ahmed chose to try to fight.

          First - those are not all facts Max. There had not been a rash of burglaries in that neighborhood. There was a handgun stolen. And there had been MULTIPLE people seen on the associated property, not just Arbery. And there was not a 911 call about Arbery in the house on that day at that time. The only call was from 2 weeks prior. THAT RHETORIC, that littlejoe posted as 'the rest of the story' was RHETORIC, not facts, and it had indeed been used to justify the pursuit.

          And no, I did not take each claim one by one and address it. Spending time trying to sort out whether they were true or false actually acknowledges that their truth or falsity somehow matters in terms of the story, it allows blame to be shifted to Arbery. And my point was that given the actions of the men in pursuit, the truth or falsity of what he listed as 'the rest of the story' was irrelevant.

          Originally posted by Maxvel
          If you choose not to listen to me because you feel I have attacked you personally, or implied you are in some way morally defective, or think that I don't listen, then by that same standard no-one here has any need to listen to you.
          I have chosen to listen to you, and to point out what I think the balance is between what I've actually said and what you have perceived me to say. If you can see logical flaws in my analysis, and can respond without personal attacks, I'll be willing to go another round on this.
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-29-2020, 01:02 PM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Look again, the tail is flat, it stopped going down about a week after states started opening up.
            no. it is a downward slope.

            Comment


            • #51
              I am posting here without wearing a mask!


              Comment


              • #52
                I am 99% sure I am immune to it in light of antibody tests from somebody else in my family who was sick at the same time I was. But I would just as soon not end up having my picture all over Nextdoor for being the person breaking the masks rules at the grocery store. And then there's the off chance I'm not immune to it.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  I am 99% sure I am immune to it in light of antibody tests from somebody else in my family who was sick at the same time I was. But I would just as soon not end up having my picture all over Nextdoor for being the person breaking the masks rules at the grocery store. And then there's the off chance I'm not immune to it.
                  Do you mind me asking, when were you sick? And in what region?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    no. it is a downward slope.

                    If you are going for a technical victory, you have it. But your characterization hides the significant change in slope from shelter in place to reopenned.

                    The tail is much, much flatter than before reopening That is, there has been a major change in slope relative to reopening, but it (fortunately) has not quite gone positive yet:


                    raw data:

                    Daily Cases US 05292020.jpg

                    5 day centered average from may 9 and a 7 day historical average (which tends to even out the weekly measurement cycle)

                    5 and 7 day averages post reopening.jpg
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      And THIS is why it's so confusing about FACE MASKS....

                      From WHO ---- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks

                      When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?
                      • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
                      • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
                      • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
                      • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.



                      No idea why, on their website, the statement is posed as a question.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        No idea why, on their website, the statement is posed as a question.
                        Engrish
                        When I Survey....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          And THIS is why it's so confusing about FACE MASKS....

                          From WHO ---- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks

                          When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?
                          • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
                          • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
                          • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
                          • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.



                          No idea why, on their website, the statement is posed as a question.
                          Looks to me like a typical frequently asked question/FAQ page.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            Looks to me like a typical frequently asked question/FAQ page.
                            I think that's exactly what it's supposed to be.

                            But it doesn't meet the "everybody must wear masks in public all the time" narrative, and certainly doesn't justify a bunch of lunatics shouting and running a customer out of a store for not wearing one.

                            So, my question would be --- how does an average citizen know which "expert" to believe?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              I think that's exactly what it's supposed to be.

                              But it doesn't meet the "everybody must wear masks in public all the time" narrative, and certainly doesn't justify a bunch of lunatics shouting and running a customer out of a store for not wearing one.

                              So, my question would be --- how does an average citizen know which "expert" to believe?
                              That's the job of propaganda -- to cover up the facts enough so that people will just go with what sounds "safest." If there is not enough people convinced, then a bigger push is made to wear masks.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                I will try to address this in good faith:



                                Thanks for your apology..



                                I have no problem with "I think THIS is wrong.". I do get tired of (paraphrase of several posts from several people) "YOU are a hypocrite and scum, a false Christian". The more towards the former a post is, the more likely I am to take it seriously. The more towards the latter a post is, the more likely I am to dismiss it as a manifestation of hate. So to the extent your 'strong language' tends towards the former, I fully support your right to do so, and intend to take such comments seriously. But I will not take seriously posts that tend to the latter. Nor will I acknowledge anyone's (including my own) right to post that way.

                                So you're going to change your posting style, then? Because you do make posts where you strongly attack the honesty, integrity and morality of people who might dare to disagree with you. But you also get upset when people 'return serve'.

                                It's quote possible that you don't think you make attacks on other posters integrity and morality. This is me telling you that whatever YOU intend, that is how you come across.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                I don't take personally a person thinking I'm supporting half-truths or falsehoods - when the topic is the ideas they believe are half-truths and falsehoods. What I take personally are attacks on my person. Personal attacks are meant to be taken personally, and its a bit disingenuous to fault the target for taking them so. If a person doesn't want me to take a post 'personally', then don't make it about my person.


                                I have my doubts it is symmetric. When a person must resort to comments like "You are a hypocrite", I tend to believe they don't actually believe their views are correct and moral. Not only that, they don't like having that brought into focus, and so they resort to the age old retort that I am not sufficiently good to be allowed to point out the conflict.

                                Try me out max. If you think I am saying or supporting something morally wrong, instead of attacking me personally, discuss the deed (or words) directly and in a context of what we as Christians should be about. See what sort of response you get. If I lash out at you like others lash out at me, then you have a point. But If I take you seriously and discuss your point of view and my own rationally, then - as I said - you can know the situation is not, in fact, symmetric.

                                I have done that. Several times. You drift back to the previous pattern. You indulge, intentionally or not, in comments that attack the integrity of people who might hold different views, because they see the facts of the case differently.

                                examples:

                                Post #44
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                The problem rogue is that you refuse to acknowledge how often what Trump does crosses red-line boundaries of morality and integrity in governance.
                                It's your belief that Trump does those things. Here you imply that Rogue refuses to acknowledge what is true... ...but what is true is your belief, based on what you take to be facts of the matter about Trump. But I very much doubt that Rogue accepts all those facts, and thus your condemnation misses the mark. Rogue is very likely applying the same ethical principles as you, but on a different set of facts. Your comment here can easily be taken as a personal attack on Rogue - 'Here's someone extremely immoral and dangerous, and you, rogue, refuse to condemn him'. IOW, you are immoral.

                                From the Arbery thread

                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                Although that rhetoric has been used as a defense, nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it.
                                Littlejoe clearly took that as a personal attack:

                                Originally posted by Littlejoe
                                That's a big load of BS you have there Ox. Again, lots of mistakes, including one by the victim himself. If someone has a gun pointed at you the last thing you should try to do is take it from them. Once he tried to wrestle for the gun, he put himself into harms way. Did he deserve to die for trespassing? NO, but when being held at gunpoint for the police, sane rational people put their hands up and wait, not try to take the gun away. That's called stupidity. I have a carry license, if I (Heaven FORBID) ever have to pull it and aim it at someone and that person tries to take it from me, they will get shot. Plain and simple.
                                Your response to that post included this:

                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                Blaming the young black man is just playing into the racist stereotypes.
                                Which Littlejoe took as another personal attack:

                                Originally posted by Littlejoe
                                Calling me a racist will not get you anywhere, and I RESENT the implication.

                                {and}

                                First of all, I haven't BLAMED anyone. I dare you to point to any of my posts in this thread and show where I have put the fault on any one person. Stupidity kills people all the time Jim...but stupidity doesn't always make it their fault. Also, you aren't a retired Police Officer. How they respond to something and how you or I respond isn't always going to be the same. I think it's a tragedy regardless of who's responsible, but, it can be a comedy of errors that resulted in an unfortunate death and nobodies ultimately responsible. At this point, I think they share the blame, facts may change my opinion one way or the other.

                                That's just a recent example where you attacked a poster for disagreeing with your view. You implied that his first post was just rhetoric (Note that rhetoric has a strong negative connotation, "the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast") and an 'attempt to justify' what happened ( Note that we don't try to justify something that everyone knows right or good, but something that could be seen as wrong) with the implication that Littlejoe should see it as wrong, but is trying to make it seem OK. Thus you attacked his integrity and morality as a person, implying his post was empty words trying to cover over a murder.

                                In your next response to Littlejoe, you imply that he is (unconciously ?) supporting racism - again this is a strong personal attack - and that he is blaming Arbery for what happened, with the implication that Arbery was at no fault at all, yet Littlejoe is trying to make it seem as if it was all his fault. Once more, personal attacks.

                                Please note that this is your first interaction in the thread and was not a reaction to Littlejoe personally attacking you.



                                Perhaps it's because you bring a 'science' approach to your interactions on Civics. In science the facts are (usually) agreed on, so the discussion is about the best interpretation of the facts. And someone who refuses to accept commonly agreed data is dishonest or has an agenda. But here the debate ranges over what are the facts - and they're often far from clear - AND how we should interpret them. I often see you grab onto one set of 'facts' and an interpretation that fits them, then attack people who disagree on the facts, when it's quite possible that they would arrive at a very similar interpretation to you IF they held the same set of 'facts'.

                                IF someone thinks you are acting hypocritically, what do you expect them to do? Not say anything about it?


                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                It's been a while since I used those words directly. So I think you are speaking from posts long past, some of which I've apologized for. At this point, I mostly don't try to characterize the rightness or wrongness of something in terms of what Jesus taught, especially (and ironically) if the person on the other end is a Christian.
                                I think you are ignoring the impact of what you post. It's very clear that Littlejoe took your interaction with him as a personal attack on him, with the implication that he was (less than honestly, glossing over the facts - "rhetoric") ignoring and trying to justify a grievous wrong; and that he was contributing to racism. I can't see how, since you both are Christians, and both know that you are Christian, it can't be an attack on Littlejoe's claim to be a Christian. If Littlejoe was dishonestly trying to paper over such an awful crime (as you implied) and contributing to racism, then surely there are significant issues in how he follows Jesus. If he really follows Him at all.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                Not discounting my comment above (IOW, at this point I avoid this), I still tend to believe calling to attention a clear divide between the teachings of Christ and a person's words is a valid response. From me or to me. The writer's in scripture do it, and they in fact command us to do it one to another. So, if there is a better way for me to word such a response, I'm all ears. But I disagree it is an inappropriate thing to do. As an aside, my understanding of scripture on this point is correcting a brother is a necessary thing - for them, for all of us. It is supposed to help keep us all on the right path, only this place has very few humble enough to accept correction of any kind. As an aside, I have not quite figured out the private vs public part. At first I did literally what scripture says, but using PM I was almost universally privately skewered for it without the attenuation a public post would require. So the next step - given there are no 'elders' as it were, is to respond publicly. Most of the time now I just don't even try the PM phase.

                                But, as I said, mostly now I don't even try the 'this is not a Christian way of thinking'. There are none here who will respond positively to that. The sad reality is, on TWEB, in CIVICS, to call attention to the fact Christ or scripture teaches contrary to what is being said on any given subject is to evoke -from the Christians here- the most hostile response that they are capable of without violating forum protocol.

                                Bro...

                                (1) Who made you the judge over your brothers and sisters in Christ here?

                                (2) When you interact as above, then you're not asking them to explain why they think as they do, you're not tactfully suggesting other alternative views and the reasons for them, you're not respectfully leading them to a better understanding. You're up on your pulpit, pointing the finger, and attacking them. Even if you're right about the particular issue, I suggest that you're going against the approach we are encouraged to use with brethren, and when you do this, you don't achieve anything good. WHO here has changed their opinion after you have called them out like this?

                                (3) How is accusing a brother of dishonestly trying to justify a murder, and contributing to racism, in public, in such strong terms, IN ANY WAY HELPFUL?

                                Why not you give your view and ask for a further explanation of their position : ex: "I think this is clearly a murder, with definite racial overtones. I can't understand how you don't immediately see it that way, Littlejoe. Can you clarify your thinking here, please?"



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                (included for context)



                                Yes and no. To back up just a bit and set a context: It is fairly well known that a common defense strategy in a rape case is to make it at least partially the women's fault. "She was acting slutty. She was flirting with him. She has had sex with a lot of men". The point is to try to say the rapist had less culpability in the rape because she was sending mixed messages, or because she generally is loose with men anyway, or that maybe she's lying about the fact he raped her after all.

                                The general trend in the arbery thread you are quoting
                                Stop right there, please. Go back to that thread. Littlejoe's post that you responded to was the THIRD POST in that thread. There was no general trend at that point. YOU brought that assumption in and put it on Littlejoe.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                is paint Arbery as having had run-ins with the law, as having a temper etc all playing into that very same mindset. Somehow it is partially Arbery's fault. Somehow these men might have been justified to go after him and Arbery's death was somehow just an unforeseen consequence of a justifiable action. This is what focusing on Arbery's potential questionable behavior does - whether the people doing it intend that as a consequence or not.

                                This has been my point all along. People here don't really understand what they are doing. They don't understand how they are playing into racial stereotypes. How they are being manipulated by them through the conservative media sources that appear to drive their arguments (in that their arguments match those of those sources). My point in the comment above is to make the point that - given there were 3 men pursuing a black man, two armed, when there was no active crime involved that could justify such a pursuit

                                At this point in that thread, you hadn't engaged with ANY of the data that we knew about the incident. You're bringing your set of 'facts' to the thread, without discussion or support or argument for them, and then attacking anyone who questions 'what exactly are the facts? Here's what I have so far, are they correct or not?'.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                , these other things just don't matter. And all that pointing them out does is take the attention off the illegal actions of the pursuers and place blame on the man killed. AFAIK, the only thing that could possibly matter in this case would be concrete evidence these men observed him committing a felony, or where told directly by an immediate eyewitness of that same felony..

                                For example, in this latest police murder of George Floyd in Minnesota - does it matter even a little bit if Floyd was in fact the person that tried to pass a counterfeit bill per the call they were answering? Here it is much more clear. And here, again, we see that in the police report an attempt was made to shift blame to Floyd by claiming he resisted arrest, only the video of the event shows no such attempt to resist arrest that could justify the force used against him, especially for a sufficient duration of time to kill him. Similarly, in the Arbery case attempts were and are made to shift blame to him by claiming he was in the house. In the end, no crime worthy of pursuit was ever committed, and so it just doesn't matter - except for the purpose of shifting blame.




                                I did address those facts Max
                                Clearly, you did not interact with them in any way, except to ignore them.


                                Originally posted by oxmixmud
                                , but not as you were expecting. I addressed them by saying the circumstances make them irrelevant.

                                I can't go with you there. That's just crazy talk. You've condemned two men as wholly responsible and guilty, no matter what actually happened.


                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                That one line is not my entire post. I said they don't matter wrt the case. I said it does not matter if they are true. IOW, The only fact that matters is that there was nothing done that could justify armed pursuit.

                                Quote the exact Georgia law on (1) Citizen's arrests; (2) Carrying firearms in public; (3) When it is permissible to arm oneself; (4) Trespassing / entering private property

                                If you can't do that RIGHT NOW, without looking it up because you have no idea, then you are speaking out of ignorance. An ignorance from which you have attacked and judged others.


                                NOTE that the McMichael's may have done everything legally and still be morally responsible. There may even be fault on all parties in the incident.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                Those other facts are only being talked about as a means to shift blame from the killers to Arbery.

                                That is YOU mindreading and impugning the integrity of anyone who simply wants to discuss 'what actually happened?' before coming to a judgment. Frankly, you ought to take a long hard look at yourself on this.




                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                But Arbery X,
                                But Arbery Y.

                                See - there is no denying that consciously or unconsciously these other facts serve only one purpose, to shift blame from the men who killed him to Arbery.
                                Rubbish. That's an incredibly bad slur on Littlejoe's character. You're saying that he has no purpose in his post except to try and cover up a murder. To try to exonerate two men guilty of murder, by implication because he's a racist. Dude, you ought to be suspended for saying things like this.



                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                Here is littlejoe's post:



                                here is the entirety of my response, not just the one sentence:




                                First - those are not all facts Max. There had not been a rash of burglaries in that neighborhood. There was a handgun stolen. And there had been MULTIPLE people seen on the associated property, not just Arbery. And there was not a 911 call about Arbery in the house on that day at that time. The only call was from 2 weeks prior.

                                (1) And IF you had raised these points in response, adn said your view was based on them, that would have been a lot better. But you didn't.

                                (2) There is (was) some question about whether Arbery had committed a crime by entering the house. Quote the Georgia law on that, right now please. If you can't, then you asserting from ignorance. I have heard that it is a possible felony, which would be grounds for a citizen to detain someone until the police arrived and investigated.

                                (3) There was also a theft of $2500 worth of fishing gear; and the homeowner was concerned enough by prowlers to install security cameras, which caught someone (appearance at least similar to Arbery) entering the home at night. There are reports of a neighbourhood watch facebook group /webboard where these incidents were posted.

                                As you say, multiple people, indicating a pattern of people entering the property without the owner's permission. Hence a reason for the neighborhood to be watching the property, and interested in people going in there.

                                (4) AFAIK there were TWO 911 calls made at the time of the incident - when Arbery was running. At least one appears to have been made by someone on foot, who approached the property while Arbery was there, and was talking on the phone as they did so. The transcript shows them describing him running away when seen.

                                In short, there is disagreement about exactly what all the facts are - even now, when we know more than we did when you posted - and you have at least some facts wrong. It's a messy, awful, tragic event. So much went wrong. Exactly everything that happened and why, we'll most likely never know. Certainly we won't know what Arbery was thinking, and why he ran up to the stopped truck, crossed over, and tried to wrestle the gun away.

                                You jumped in with a quick judgment, bro. Own it.


                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                THAT RHETORIC, that littlejoe posted as 'the rest of the story' was RHETORIC, not facts, and it had indeed been used to justify the pursuit.

                                And no, I did not take each claim one by one and address it. Spending time trying to sort out whether they were true or false actually acknowledges that their truth or falsity somehow matters in terms of the story,
                                Of course they do! I'm horrified that you think they don't. Wow.





                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                it allows blame to be shifted to Arbery. And my point was that given the actions of the men in pursuit, the truth or falsity of what he listed as 'the rest of the story' was irrelevant.

                                Again you're simply begging the question, and attacking people who don't do that. You're assuming that there is no possible way, no circumstance, in which Arbery could have ANY responsibility, ANY share at all in the outcome of the incident. You've stripped him of his agency as a human being. That denigrates him and devalues him as a person. And it's incredibly dangerous to encourage anyone to think like that.

                                On top of that, you appear (being kind) to have judged the case purely on the basis of the races of the people involved. McMichaels, white, therefore completely guilty no matter the facts (as you have repeatedly said). Arbery, African American, therefore innocent and bears no responsibility, not even a small share, no matter what he did. That's pure racism, bro. You've judged people's guilt and innocence purely on their race.




                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                                I have chosen to listen to you, and to point out what I think the balance is between what I've actually said and what you have perceived me to say. If you can see logical flaws in my analysis, and can respond without personal attacks, I'll be willing to go another round on this.

                                I make no promises about personal attacks, since you use them when the mood strikes you, you must be prepared to accept them from time to time.
                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X