Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 88

Thread: Exemplification of the PHONIESS of the left.

  1. #61
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Bump for oxmixmudd...
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  2. #62
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,026
    Amen (Given)
    19893
    Amen (Received)
    3819
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    snipping for length

    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.
    In his mind when he does it he is only giving a "wake up call", but when others do it it is out of hatred and malice, even if they explicitly say that is not the case. He can't see the anger and hatred his own posts exude towards others.

  3. #63
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    In his mind when he does it he is only giving a "wake up call", but when others do it it is out of hatred and malice, even if they explicitly say that is not the case. He can't see the anger and hatred his own posts exude towards others.
    Often we don't see our words as others see them. I think there's a degree of ambiguity in written posts that we don't have in face to face discussions.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  4. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  5. #64
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    I'm going to try to avoid the 'every post is longer than the last one problem'. So I'm going to keep my replies to the segments you've created as brief as I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    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.

    There is nothing to respond to here. We do, however, have a fundamental difference of opinion. From my standpoint "You are a hypocrite" or "you are disgusting and a liar" is completely different from "The thing you said is false" or "This idea is contrary to what Christ taught".

    Throughout this reply you tend to equate them. So we are at an impasse there. It one is to debate, one must be able to point out the idea or opinion that is in conflict or that is going to be defended or challenged. That is fundamentally different from attacking the direct character of a person. The difficulty throughout my time in civics is characterized by this fundamental difference. I am routinely attacked on a personal basis, but on occasion have my ideas addressed or challenged directly. My typical response is to challenge the idea, and on occasion I might directly snap out a direct attack on a person's character.

    However, those whose Ideas routinely view my challenges of their statements as direct attacks on them- thinking that somehow it's all the same and I do the same thing as everyone else. And it just isn't the case.

    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
    Quote 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by maxvel
    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.
    Nope - I am not saying Rogue is immoral. I'm actually trying to word my response to avoid any sort of personal attack on rogue. I am saying 'please listen', 'please stop dismissing my comments before you've even thought about if they are true'.

    As for what is 'my belief' vs what is actually wrong - no. You have not understood what it is I'm actually calling rogue on. In my quote of myself, I've highlighted what you are missing. "HOW OFTEN".

    It is somewhat rare when there is actual debate over the idea some single thing I bring up is actually Trump doing something wrong. But there is a lot of excuse making as to why what he did THIS TIME is of no real consequence. That is why I said 'HOW OFTEN'. The problem is that what Trump does is excused as if it was a one off, or only a few. But if we could get a perspective that sees the forest instead of limiting the view to just one tree, it becomes a very different picture. Trump is SO OFTEN in the cesspool that it's not something one can deal with based on THIS TIME. It's a lot like what happens in YEC. The focus is on showing some data could be interpreted differently than what leads to an old Earth/old Universe conclusion. And the debates stop there. And the question of whether or not any of those disparate 'possible' interpretations are in any way consilient with each other is ignored/not addressed.

    From the Arbery thread



    Littlejoe clearly took that as a personal attack:
    This goes back to my point. He may have taken it personally, but textually, semantically, I am not attacking littleJoe, I'm attacking the ideas he has presented and their effect (reassignment of blame).



    Your response to that post included this:



    Which Littlejoe took as another personal attack:[/QUOTE]

    Yes - littlejoe doesn't understand how his repetition of that rhetoric (and I addressed in my post that it was not actual facts but rhetoric) reassigns blame to Arbery. Most people posting in that thread don't understand that.



    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.
    I will agree with you that my choice of the word rhetoric has a negative connotation. And I used that word on purpose, but not to characterize littlejoe himself, but to characterize the content of the information he was presenting as 'fact'. That list was not a list of 'facts' about the case, they were rhetoric of the kind very typically disseminated by racist sources in cases like this. Specifically, several of them were known to be false at the time I responded, and they in all cases tend to shift blame to Arbery. That is what racist sources do in cases like this, they try to shift blame back to the black person. Now all I can do in this case would be to redouble my efforts to clearly define the target of any negative connotation language I use. But that the list of facts was 'rhetoric' is the point I am making, and if I can't make that point without littlejoe taking it as a personal attack on him, and as a consequence I am not allowed to make the point, then there is no capacity for debate left in this forum.

    I repeat: There is a categorical difference between attacking an idea (debate) and attacking the person (ad hominem). What I find in general on these pages is that the difference between the two is not well understood. So I will attack an idea, and the person will believe I have attacked THEM, and then they will directly attack me with ad hominem in response.


    Quote Originally Posted by maxvel
    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.
    No, I'm not trying to assign fault to littlejoe, but I am pointing out that what littlejoe is saying is driven by an underlying cultural racism littlejoe is likely not aware of. I have had to face my own issues with unconscious racism. I do not view anyone that is blind to the racism that has been inculated in them by our culture as 'bad'. I do not see it as something they should have been able to understand on their own. My point is that it is there, no fault of their own. But the fact that it's there is also a real problem, and it needs to be dealt with. But in trying to break down that wall, there is another wall. The idea that there can be 'unconscious' racism is viewed as a liberal myth. And so the tendency is to dismiss without so much as a second thought any mention of the possibility that is happening.

    Please note that this is your first interaction in the thread and was not a reaction to Littlejoe personally attacking you.
    Nor was it ever intended as an attack on anything other than the 'list of facts' as you characterized it.


    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'.
    You are right that I bring a 'science' approach to the problem. And that there is more latitude for interpretation in CIVICS than in NAT SCI. That said, that distinction only goes so far. Morality itself is not relative. What differs is the weights we assign to different elements of morality. And usually I welcome discussions about WHY a person sees what I see as immoral as not so. But I rarely actually get such a discussion. Mostly what happens is that when I bring up that I see X as immoral, that person sees me saying THEY are immoral, and the conversation is over.

    IF someone thinks you are acting hypocritically, what do you expect them to do? Not say anything about it?
    Again, this is simple, and pings back to the difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea.

    To make the point, and perhaps to help clarify our differing perspectives - do you see a difference between:

    (1) "You are a hypocrite and a fool"

    (2) "Saying x while claiming y is hypocritical"

    If you see a difference, then you can guess (2) is what I hope for, and (1) is what I usually get.

    OK - I see I'm not going to be able to actually avoid the 'ever expanding post problem' if I continue. So - please do not take this personally - but I'm going to pick a very limited set of what remains. Not to avoid any points you make below, but simply to make the content of single replies managable.

    And In point of fact a lot of what you address below has what are fundamentally the same answers as what I've posted above. I will note with ellipsis where I have skipped a portion of your post.



    .
    .
    .

    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?
    (1) You are mistaking correction for judgement. I am commanded by scripture to correct a brother/sister in error. Likewise are you or anyone else if they are trying to correct what they see as my incorrect behavior as you are in this post. Now sometimes the corrected is wrong, and sometimes the corrector is wrong. Sometimes BOTH are wrong (in part) and BOTH are right (in part). The way that gets resolved is through calm, rational discussion without judgement.

    (2) You are at least partially right. I will continue to try to avoid that - though it's not something I can fully correct on my own.

    (3) This is why it is not something I can fully correct on my own. What you have said I did is not an accurate summary of what I actually did: You are characterizing what I've said in extreme terms that are not the equivalent of what was said. In doing that you are reading my words through a very negative lens. And I can't control the lens through which others read my words. All I can do is try to avoid triggering an obvious negative lens.

    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?"
    I have tried to do that more in the past than I do in the present, but I do still try to do what you are recommended. I will note that I've rarely gotten the idealized response in your example. But I'll admit I don't take the time to carefully phrase my words often enough.




    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.
    You have not understood my point. I am not saying littlejoe's post was part of a trend. I am saying littlejoe's post was tied to that general approach of shifting blame from the perpetrator to the victim, which eventually became the trend of the entire thread.




    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?'.
    My main point, which you missed or with which you disagree, is that there were no known facts of any sort that could possibly overshadow what the men that pursued arbery did, AND that a good deal of the rhetoric from the right was trying to create a narrative that could help shift the blame. My point was, and was clearly stated as such, the information he listed, even if true, is irrelevant. Even if Arbery intended to rob that house some day, even if he had trespassed, nothing he actually did that day could justify armed pursuit.




    .
    .
    .

    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.
    No - it's not crazy. The facts mentioned by littlejoe could not 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.
    You are being absolutely ridiculous. I've read the law, but I would not even hope to be able to quote it. I don't have an eidetic memory. But one doesn't need to be able to quote it if one is not dealing with some fine grained distinction in it. I do know 'without looking it up' that pursuit in Georgia is only justified if knowledge of a felony is involved. Nothing known that day would constitute knowledge of a felony - therefore pursuit - especially armed pursuit - was not justified.


    .
    .
    .

    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.
    No - that is me discussing the actual effect of the words used, just as you did above. It has nothing to do with motive or character. If my words cause someone to feel impuned, that is their effect, even if it is not my intent. I have not debated whether littlejoe took my post personally. That was the effect of my words on him. What I have debated is whether or not the words I used linguistically or semantically actually communicated what became their effect. In this case, these words carry meanings the speaker is not aware of. So their effect seems disconnected from their intent. That is why we have to back up and learn what certain words mean in a given context.

    As an aside - IF I could learn what words of mine are perceived as personal attacks, if there were actually some rational means by which I could deduce their effect ahead of time and such that I could chose a different set of words and avoid that effect, I would devote the time necessary to do so. However, at this point in time it looks to me like any words of mine critical of an idea will be interpreted as critical of the person promoting the idea. So although I do indeed try different ways of wording my statements to see if I can find a path to rational conversation, so far I have yet to find such a path.





    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.
    And you just made my point. But X; But Y is the semantics of exception. Their effect is to turn away from the original idea.

    What the McMichaels did was awful ...

    But Arbery was X; But Arbery was Y.

    That semantic construct through the use of But X and But Y Turns the idea away from "was awful"

    The construct itself does that, whether littlejoe understands that or not, whether he intends to case blame on Arbery or not. That is what that semantic construct does in the mind of the hearer. The entire thrust of my point is that its accidental on littlejoe's part.

    That reply was not to impune littlejoe, but to say that regardless of littlejoe's intent, the phrase could do nothing else but turn blame to Arbery.

    Would that such a syntax could be defined that would allow me to avoid making people I respond to think I'm attacking them instead of debating the ideas they have presented.






    .
    .
    .

    (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.
    The house was not locked or closed. It was wide open, under construction. The dispatcher asked specifically and the caller answered. What I understand (as opposed to have 'heard') is that it is not felony to enter a house under construction that is not locked or closed in.

    .
    .
    .


    (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.
    I disagree Max. I was addressing what was listed, not what might have been.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    ... nothing so far can even come close to justifying ...
    What was mentioned did not change the status of what happened, therefore raising those 'exceptions' did not serve any purpose other than to assign some blame to Arbery. IF something in that list actually could justify the McMichael's actions, THEN there would be a purpose in raising them.

    As to the calls, there has been some confusion in the reporting as to what calls were made when. There is a call made two weeks earlier. There are in fact two call made that day as you point out. But in the calls on the day of, the dispatcher asks what, if anything, other than running and being in the 'open' house under construction the person had done wrong. And there is no clear answer. Even with more knowledge and hindsight, there still is nothing that Arbery did that could have justified the McMichael's armed pursuit.

    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.
    Again, that is a distortion. In my response, I am saying nothing in the list littlejoe provided could have justified the McMichaels reaction. Taking it farther than that is to distort my meaning by inserting implications never intended or implied by the text I wrote.

    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.
    No - In my post I judged the case on the absurdity of three civilians in two vehicles - armed - pursuing a man on no more than being seen in a house under construction resulting in his death. It would not matter what the races where of the people involved, it would be absurd. However, the fact the pursuers were white and the man pursued and killed was black drops in that other variable - race. And given the history of racism in Georgia and the US, that does indeed make it worse than it would be if all the people involved were the same race, because now it is possible that one of the reasons he was pursued in that absurd way was not because he was doing something wrong, but because he was black. In fact, and this is not something that can be dismissed, because the pursuit was itself absurd and way out of proportion with what was observed, it not only raises the possibility, it points towards it.



    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.
    No - not when 'the mood strikes me'. OTOH, I will make a promise not to resort to personal attacks at you in this series of posts. If you think I am attacking you personally, look for another explanation, or ask what I really mean.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-01-2020 at 09:27 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  6. #65
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    I'm going to try to avoid the 'every post is longer than the last one problem'. So I'm going to keep my replies to the segments you've created as brief as I can.
    No, please don't do that! I was hoping our discussion could grow into 'the thread that broke the Internet'. I have a whole LOT of stuff about how the pyramids were built (It was aliens, after all), translations of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and changes in the Earth's magnetic field to bring to the table.


    Will respond later...
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  7. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  8. #66
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    65,015
    Amen (Given)
    14084
    Amen (Received)
    28952
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Often we don't see our words as others see them. I think there's a degree of ambiguity in written posts that we don't have in face to face discussions.
    And we say things in posts we'd never say face to face.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  9. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  10. #67
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    And we say things in posts we'd never say face to face.
    Whoah there, cowboy! This thread is about you, isn't it?
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  11. #68
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    65,015
    Amen (Given)
    14084
    Amen (Received)
    28952
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Whoah there, cowboy! This thread is about you, isn't it?
    You bet your sweet janglin spurs, it is!
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  12. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  13. #69
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I'm going to try to avoid the 'every post is longer than the last one problem'. So I'm going to keep my replies to the segments you've created as brief as I can.


    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



    Nope - I am not saying Rogue is immoral. I'm actually trying to word my response to avoid any sort of personal attack on rogue. I am saying 'please listen', 'please stop dismissing my comments before you've even thought about if they are true'.

    As for what is 'my belief' vs what is actually wrong - no. You have not understood what it is I'm actually calling rogue on. In my quote of myself, I've highlighted what you are missing. "HOW OFTEN".

    It is somewhat rare when there is actual debate over the idea some single thing I bring up is actually Trump doing something wrong. But there is a lot of excuse making as to why what he did THIS TIME is of no real consequence. That is why I said 'HOW OFTEN'. The problem is that what Trump does is excused as if it was a one off, or only a few. But if we could get a perspective that sees the forest instead of limiting the view to just one tree, it becomes a very different picture. Trump is SO OFTEN in the cesspool that it's not something one can deal with based on THIS TIME. It's a lot like what happens in YEC. The focus is on showing some data could be interpreted differently than what leads to an old Earth/old Universe conclusion. And the debates stop there. And the question of whether or not any of those disparate 'possible' interpretations are in any way consilient with each other is ignored/not addressed.



    This goes back to my point. He may have taken it personally, but textually, semantically, I am not attacking littleJoe, I'm attacking the ideas he has presented and their effect (reassignment of blame).



    Your response to that post included this:



    Which Littlejoe took as another personal attack:
    Yes - littlejoe doesn't understand how his repetition of that rhetoric (and I addressed in my post that it was not actual facts but rhetoric) reassigns blame to Arbery. Most people posting in that thread don't understand that.





    I will agree with you that my choice of the word rhetoric has a negative connotation. And I used that word on purpose, but not to characterize littlejoe himself, but to characterize the content of the information he was presenting as 'fact'. That list was not a list of 'facts' about the case, they were rhetoric of the kind very typically disseminated by racist sources in cases like this. Specifically, several of them were known to be false at the time I responded, and they in all cases tend to shift blame to Arbery. That is what racist sources do in cases like this, they try to shift blame back to the black person. Now all I can do in this case would be to redouble my efforts to clearly define the target of any negative connotation language I use. But that the list of facts was 'rhetoric' is the point I am making, and if I can't make that point without littlejoe taking it as a personal attack on him, and as a consequence I am not allowed to make the point, then there is no capacity for debate left in this forum.

    I repeat: There is a categorical difference between attacking an idea (debate) and attacking the person (ad hominem). What I find in general on these pages is that the difference between the two is not well understood. So I will attack an idea, and the person will believe I have attacked THEM, and then they will directly attack me with ad hominem in response.[/quote]

    (1) You are (again) assuming 'facts' that others don't assume, and then attacking them for their lack of response to those 'facts'. Specifically, you obviously have a serious issue with Trump, and almost everything he says and does. You therefore see a constant stream of Trump doing bad things. but others don't see that. They see some thing Trump says and does that are bad, some that are dodgy, and some that are plainly lies and distortions of what Trump said or did.

    Your 'often' only has weight if the person you are addressing sees it as 'often'. Rogue DOESN'T "...refuse to acknowledge how often" Trump... unless he sees it as being 'often'. If he doesn't, then your wording simply implies he is willfully denying the truth, and more than that, deliberately ignoring a grave moral problem in your President.

    Argue the facts, and get agreement on those before you attribute moral fault.



    (2) Littlejoe took your post (from his reply) as an attack on him. You doubled down and accused him of supporting racism. You didn't clarify your meaning - 'It wasn't meant as an attack on you, I meant...'. Own what you did, and accept that it was offensive and wrong.

    (3) You never addressed the facts Littlejoe posted, you could have explained why they were not true, offered alternatives, or even just said: 'I don't agree that that's what happened. Here's what I think happened, and here's what I conclude from that..'



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    No, I'm not trying to assign fault to littlejoe, but I am pointing out that what littlejoe is saying is driven by an underlying cultural racism littlejoe is likely not aware of. I have had to face my own issues with unconscious racism. I do not view anyone that is blind to the racism that has been inculated in them by our culture as 'bad'. I do not see it as something they should have been able to understand on their own. My point is that it is there, no fault of their own. But the fact that it's there is also a real problem, and it needs to be dealt with. But in trying to break down that wall, there is another wall. The idea that there can be 'unconscious' racism is viewed as a liberal myth. And so the tendency is to dismiss without so much as a second thought any mention of the possibility that is happening.
    By definition racism has to have an element of intent (hatred or intolerance) or belief in some form of racial superiority. I find the whole idea of a cultural racism that people don't even realise they have rather dubious. It's an easy accusation to make and difficult to disprove. A rhetorical cheap shot, IOW.

    You should be able to point to something you know a person believes and explain why that belief is racist. You don't know Littlejoe personally, you know very little of his life and behaviour - just the same as all of us here, with everyone else. You're just not in a position to make that accusation unless you can substantiate it very clearly from his own words.


    [/quote=oxmixmudd]
    Nor was it ever intended as an attack on anything other than the 'list of facts' as you characterized it.




    You are right that I bring a 'science' approach to the problem. And that there is more latitude for interpretation in CIVICS than in NAT SCI. That said, that distinction only goes so far. Morality itself is not relative. What differs is the weights we assign to different elements of morality. And usually I welcome discussions about WHY a person sees what I see as immoral as not so. But I rarely actually get such a discussion. Mostly what happens is that when I bring up that I see X as immoral, that person sees me saying THEY are immoral, and the conversation is over.



    Again, this is simple, and pings back to the difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea.

    To make the point, and perhaps to help clarify our differing perspectives - do you see a difference between:

    (1) "You are a hypocrite and a fool"

    (2) "Saying x while claiming y is hypocritical"

    If you see a difference, then you can guess (2) is what I hope for, and (1) is what I usually get.

    OK - I see I'm not going to be able to actually avoid the 'ever expanding post problem' if I continue. So - please do not take this personally - but I'm going to pick a very limited set of what remains. Not to avoid any points you make below, but simply to make the content of single replies managable.

    And In point of fact a lot of what you address below has what are fundamentally the same answers as what I've posted above. I will note with ellipsis where I have skipped a portion of your post.





    (1) You are mistaking correction for judgement. I am commanded by scripture to correct a brother/sister in error. Likewise are you or anyone else if they are trying to correct what they see as my incorrect behavior as you are in this post. Now sometimes the corrected is wrong, and sometimes the corrector is wrong. Sometimes BOTH are wrong (in part) and BOTH are right (in part). The way that gets resolved is through calm, rational discussion without judgement.[/quote]


    Galatians 6:1 It's leading someone who you have a church relationship with, in a spirit of gentleness and humility, back from sin.


    2 Timothy 2:23-26 It's a God-designated church leader being given advice and instruction on how to shepherd the flock he is responsible for. Correcting people who oppose that leadership and the gospel. In humility.

    Both are in a church context, and both involve correcting people about sin / false teaching.

    Not telling people on a discussion board that they are morally failing for not agreeing with your political poistions.



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    (2) You are at least partially right. I will continue to try to avoid that - though it's not something I can fully correct on my own.

    (3) This is why it is not something I can fully correct on my own. What you have said I did is not an accurate summary of what I actually did: You are characterizing what I've said in extreme terms that are not the equivalent of what was said. In doing that you are reading my words through a very negative lens. And I can't control the lens through which others read my words. All I can do is try to avoid triggering an obvious negative lens.



    I have tried to do that more in the past than I do in the present, but I do still try to do what you are recommended. I will note that I've rarely gotten the idealized response in your example. But I'll admit I don't take the time to carefully phrase my words often enough.






    You have not understood my point. I am not saying littlejoe's post was part of a trend. I am saying littlejoe's post was tied to that general approach of shifting blame from the perpetrator to the victim, which eventually became the trend of the entire thread.






    My main point, which you missed or with which you disagree, is that there were no known facts of any sort that could possibly overshadow what the men that pursued arbery did, AND that a good deal of the rhetoric from the right was trying to create a narrative that could help shift the blame. My point was, and was clearly stated as such, the information he listed, even if true, is irrelevant. Even if Arbery intended to rob that house some day, even if he had trespassed, nothing he actually did that day could justify armed pursuit.






    No - it's not crazy. The facts mentioned by littlejoe could not justify armed pursuit.

    You're again begging the question. The point is that it is possible that there might be facts (in any case we might consider) that could justify that kind of action. You jumped in and declared - without discussing anything brought to the table at that point - that no facts could possibly justify what happened. Others want to know all the facts, to discuss them, and to clarify them BEFORE they decide how to view what happened. Accusing them of 'right wing bias' is a huge cop-out - you're just a priori assuming you're right, and attacking anyone who wants to have their own view. I can't put it nicer than that.

    Imagine if someone came into that thread a few posts in, and declared that: 'there was no possible fact that could justify Arbery doing what he did, he should have waited quietly for the police to arrive, and his death was his own stupid fault. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a leftist fool.'

    How would you react to that? That is effectively, the opposite of what you did.



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    You are being absolutely ridiculous. I've read the law, but I would not even hope to be able to quote it. I don't have an eidetic memory. But one doesn't need to be able to quote it if one is not dealing with some fine grained distinction in it. I do know 'without looking it up' that pursuit in Georgia is only justified if knowledge of a felony is involved. Nothing known that day would constitute knowledge of a felony - therefore pursuit - especially armed pursuit - was not justified.


    You're arguing from ignorance, then. If you're not familiar with the relevant laws, then you are overstepping what you know by calling it murder (= illegal killing), and by claiming there could be no possible justification. You simply don't know, so stop spouting off.

    There are three kinds of judgment we can bring to a case like this:

    (1) Was it legally correct? Did the parties act within the law?

    (2) Was it morally correct? Did the parties act morally?

    (3) Was it wise? Did the parties make good and wise choices?


    So

    (1) AFAIK there IS Georgian law that allows citizen's arrests; that allows carrying firearms (and in fact in the case of long arms (e.g. shotgun) requires, if loaded, for you to carry the gun visible to others), that allows 'stand your ground' and for self defense if attacked. There is also AFAIK law that makes it illegal to enter private property without permission, and a felony if done with intent to steal or prepare for theft. Such intent can most often only be determined by talking to and examining the suspect and the scene.


    It's therefore quite possible that the McMichaels did not break the law up to the point the firearm discharged. And maybe not at all. That will be for the courts to decide. They may emerge legally justified.


    (2) I think it's morally OK, in principle, for anyone, including Christians, to act in accordance with what the law allows, except where the law clearly contravenes what God calls a follower of Christ to say and do (or not say and not do). IF the McMichaels didn't break the law then they are also morally justified, unless we can show a clear conflict with God's law. May God have mercy on their souls, what happened is a terrible thing to be involved in, in any way.


    (3) Were they wise? No. Probably they should have continued to try to follow Arbery in their vehicles, communicating with the police, until the police could deal with it. But we have the advantage of hindsight - I doubt they thought Arbery would try to grab the gun. If they thought that, they would have remained in the vehicle, moving. One could have been in the tray and one driving.




    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    No - that is me discussing the actual effect of the words used, just as you did above. It has nothing to do with motive or character. If my words cause someone to feel impuned, that is their effect, even if it is not my intent. I have not debated whether littlejoe took my post personally. That was the effect of my words on him. What I have debated is whether or not the words I used linguistically or semantically actually communicated what became their effect. In this case, these words carry meanings the speaker is not aware of. So their effect seems disconnected from their intent. That is why we have to back up and learn what certain words mean in a given context.

    As an aside - IF I could learn what words of mine are perceived as personal attacks, if there were actually some rational means by which I could deduce their effect ahead of time and such that I could chose a different set of words and avoid that effect, I would devote the time necessary to do so. However, at this point in time it looks to me like any words of mine critical of an idea will be interpreted as critical of the person promoting the idea. So although I do indeed try different ways of wording my statements to see if I can find a path to rational conversation, so far I have yet to find such a path.







    And you just made my point. But X; But Y is the semantics of exception. Their effect is to turn away from the original idea.

    What the McMichaels did was awful ...

    But Arbery was X; But Arbery was Y.

    That semantic construct through the use of But X and But Y Turns the idea away from "was awful"

    The construct itself does that, whether littlejoe understands that or not, whether he intends to case blame on Arbery or not. That is what that semantic construct does in the mind of the hearer. The entire thrust of my point is that its accidental on littlejoe's part.

    That reply was not to impune littlejoe, but to say that regardless of littlejoe's intent, the phrase could do nothing else but turn blame to Arbery.

    Would that such a syntax could be defined that would allow me to avoid making people I respond to think I'm attacking them instead of debating the ideas they have presented.








    The house was not locked or closed. It was wide open, under construction. The dispatcher asked specifically and the caller answered. What I understand (as opposed to have 'heard') is that it is not felony to enter a house under construction that is not locked or closed in.



    I disagree Max. I was addressing what was listed, not what might have been.



    What was mentioned did not change the status of what happened, therefore raising those 'exceptions' did not serve any purpose other than to assign some blame to Arbery. IF something in that list actually could justify the McMichael's actions, THEN there would be a purpose in raising them.

    As to the calls, there has been some confusion in the reporting as to what calls were made when. There is a call made two weeks earlier. There are in fact two call made that day as you point out. But in the calls on the day of, the dispatcher asks what, if anything, other than running and being in the 'open' house under construction the person had done wrong. And there is no clear answer. Even with more knowledge and hindsight, there still is nothing that Arbery did that could have justified the McMichael's armed pursuit.



    Again, that is a distortion. In my response, I am saying nothing in the list littlejoe provided could have justified the McMichaels reaction. Taking it farther than that is to distort my meaning by inserting implications never intended or implied by the text I wrote.
    Then why did you NOT clarify your actual meaning when it became clear Littlejoe had taken personal offence?

    That is on you. You attacked him again, implying he was supporting racism. That's a very serious accusation to make, frankly one that I feel should be treated as seriously on the board as accusing someone of lying.

    At least now you're beginning to discuss the details of the case...



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    No - In my post I judged the case on the absurdity of three civilians in two vehicles - armed - pursuing a man on no more than being seen in a house under construction resulting in his death.
    But you don't know that that - and only that - was what they were thinking at the time. That is your assumption, based on your refusal to examine the facts and elucidate just exactly what happened and the full background to the incident.

    AFAIK the McMichaels had some law enforcement background, had been made aware of a recent series of problems with theft and prowlers in the neighbourhood, and had been asked by the owner (and local police) to keep an eye on his property. There was at least some prior connection between them and Arbery, in a prior arrests or criminal case. It is possible that they went to see who the person was, recognised Arbery, and followed him on the basis of the facts I outlined. And then (unwisely) tried to stop him.

    Maybe those facts are not all correct, but they put a different angle on what happened if they are correct. That's why we can't come to any conclusion without digging deeply into them. I still have an open mind about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    It would not matter what the races where of the people involved, it would be absurd. However, the fact the pursuers were white and the man pursued and killed was black drops in that other variable - race. And given the history of racism in Georgia and the US, that does indeed make it worse than it would be if all the people involved were the same race, because now it is possible that one of the reasons he was pursued in that absurd way was not because he was doing something wrong, but because he was black. In fact, and this is not something that can be dismissed, because the pursuit was itself absurd and way out of proportion with what was observed, it not only raises the possibility, it points towards it.
    Again you assume that there are no other explanations of the reasons for their behaviour, and bring race in when there is no evidence for that. We have no clue as to what the McMichaels think or believe, or exactly why they drove out and tried to stop Arbery in the way they did. You're simply reading their minds - he was black, they were white, thus it 'must have been' racism on their part. SMH. American is so messed up.


    In a complete vacuum, is it not possible for something like this to happen and it NOT be a racist incident? I believe it is - since racism requires motivation or belief - actions and facts of the matter and circumstances in and of themselves cannot be racist. We have to know why someone took the action.


    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    No - not when 'the mood strikes me'. OTOH, I will make a promise not to resort to personal attacks at you in this series of posts. If you think I am attacking you personally, look for another explanation, or ask what I really mean.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  14. Amen Cerebrum123, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  15. #70
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    Max,


    Thank you for taking the time. I will try to take to heart some of your comments, the ones i believe are possible for me to implement. Much of your critique, however, reveals a significant unwillingness to hear what I'm actually saying, or to believe it seems that I'm being honest with you.

    An example is your lengthy discussions trying to make the case that my commentss related to identifying language that is ultimately racist but culturally derived is in fact a direct accusation of explicit conscious racism, which they are not.

    I do appreciate your capacity to go this long without resorting to a direct personal attack. If others here could find a way to follow your example, I believe most of the tension between myself and them would quickly dissipate, even if we can not agree on the topics we debate.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-02-2020 at 07:37 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •