• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

AnonyMoose said:
It's not my fault you fail to comprehend the process of deductive reasoning.

But by all means, do continue trying to pat yourself on the back by way of pulling out the ol' logical fallacy card. I'm sure somewhere somebody thinks it actually applies in this case, giving you comfort in thinking you look all smart n' stuff.
Click to expand...

If you offer up a third party arbiter we can accept to determine if you committed a fallacy, I would gladly put a one week signature bet on it.
 
A friendly remeinder that the best way to deal with Trolls who get their kicks by disrupting threads is to ignore them. engagins them is just giving them what they want.
 
theprestige said:
The straw man I'm referring to is the argument that AnonyMoose, JoeMorgue, and Darat keep referring to, the argument that AnonyMoose describes as:

Trumpettes are trying to say that unless it's attempted murder, it doesn't count and therefore should be hand-waved as "no harm, no foul".

This argument is a strawman. Nobody in this thread is trying to say what AnonyMoose claims. Nobody in this thread is doing what Darat asserts. Nobody in this thread is doing what JoeMorgue is complaining about.
Click to expand...
You're right... nobody AT THIS TIME is saying "no harm no foul".

I suspect people are just used to expecting the worst from Trump and his supporters... that they recognize that while they may not be saying "no harm no foul" now, the constant attempts at belittling the events makes people wary that such "no harm no foul" claims will come in the future.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If I quickly tried to make 8 chairs with no woodworking experience, and none of them could be used as chairs, I wouldn't talk about the chairs I made. It would be the time I failed to make a chair.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is wrong. If you made 8 bombs and they didn't go off automatically, but could still be set off by lighting them with a match, they are still bombs.
 
uke2se said:
I think I'll bookmark this thread for future reference. That all the Trumpettes posting here are promoting conspiracy theories to avoid facing the very strong possibility that this was an attempt at mass murder against political opponents and that it was one of their very angry and very stupid fellow Trump sycophants perpetrating it... it's kind of beautiful.
Click to expand...

I knew right-wingers didn't care about human life so long as it was out of the womb, but it seems they downright want people to die, so long as they're on the left.
 
theprestige said:
Ironically, that's not the straw man I'm referring to.

SnA is arguing that the evidence supports the conclusion that the packages were intended to frighten, but not to actually explode. That's a sensible argument, but in my opinion not a very strong given the evidence so far.

The straw man I'm referring to is the argument that AnonyMoose, JoeMorgue, and Darat keep referring to, the argument that AnonyMoose describes as:


This argument is a strawman. Nobody in this thread is trying to say what AnonyMoose claims. Nobody in this thread is doing what Darat asserts. Nobody in this thread is doing what JoeMorgue is complaining about.

The closest anyone has come to supporting their spurious claim is you, citing SnA making an entirely different argument.
Click to expand...


I think you're using an extremely charitable reading of Slings and Arrow's argument.

He is saying that these devices were not ever dangerous, that the Dems are making too much of it because like everything else he lists, it is fake and/or the fault of the Dems.

You are right in that it is not exactly 'no harm, no foul', it is substantially worse in 'Dem's harm, Dem's foul, Dem's always fake'.

I say skip all the between steps of 'they weren't real bombs, and if they were real bombs they weren't going to go off, and if there were intended to go off it was a libtard, and if it was a right-winger then it wasn't a Trump supporter, and if it was a Trump supporter they didn't do it because they supported Trump,' and get right to the 'it's the media/opposition/libtard's fault and they deserved it' that Trump is getting at already.
 
dudalb said:
A friendly remeinder that the best way to deal with Trolls who get their kicks by disrupting threads is to ignore them. engagins them is just giving them what they want.
Click to expand...


Duly noted.

I'll stop getting sucked into the baiting game now, thanks for the reminder.





Back on topic:

Robert De Niro... really?

Why send a bomb (fake or real) to someone like Robert De Niro? It's not like he has any impact on policy, laws, governing, etc? So why the need to terrorize such an individual?
 
AnonyMoose said:
Duly noted.

I'll stop getting sucked into the baiting game now, thanks for the reminder.





Back on topic:

Robert De Niro... really?

Why send a bomb (fake or real) to someone like Robert De Niro? It's not like he has any impact on policy, laws, governing, etc? So why the need to terrorize such an individual?
Click to expand...

Because he made Trumpist morons sad by having a go at the God Emperor.
 
Chairs break, and bombs don't always explode.

However, one is more common than the other, such that there is a word for one, and not the other.

A chair that breaks is still just a chair, albeit a broken one. There is no word that means "broken chair".

A bomb that fails to blow up is a dud. Not fake, just a dud. Still a bomb, but common enough to have a name to differentiate it from other bombs.


I read a book about the Unibomber. It took him a fair bit of tries to get it right. One thing the book pointed out is that letter/parcel bombs can are hard to do. It needs to survive being tossed and handled, flipped on its side or upside down, crushed under other packages, bounced around in trucks in hot and cold environments with variable humidity and air pressure, for an indeterminate amount of time, all without blowing up. It can't leak, or smell, or smoke, or tick. And that was all in the days before we had scanners and various detection machinery built into mail processing facilities.

Then it needs to blow up based on an action as simple as opening a box or envelope. It can't be disarmed if the person opens it an unexpected way.

If this was the bomber's first try, they may really just be duds, intended to go off but failing to succeed.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Chairs break, and bombs don't always explode.

However, one is more common than the other, such that there is a word for one, and not the other.

A chair that breaks is still just a chair, albeit a broken one. There is no word that means "broken chair".

A bomb that fails to blow up is a dud. Not fake, just a dud. Still a bomb, but common enough to have a name to differentiate it from other bombs.


I read a book about the Unibomber. It took him a fair bit of tries to get it right. One thing the book pointed out is that letter bombs can are hard to do. It needs to survive being tossed and handled, crushed under other packages, bounced around in trucks in hot and cold environments, for an indeterminate amount of time, all without blowing up. It can't leak, or smell, or smoke, or tick. And that was all in the days before we had scanners and various detection machinery built into mail processing facilities.

Then it needs to blow up based on an action as simple as opening a box or envelope. It can't be disarmed if the person opens it an unexpected way.

If this was the bomber's first try, they may really just be duds, intended to go of but failing to succeed.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

ETA: although some were hand delivered. The basic principle still applies.
 
tyr_13 said:
I think you're using an extremely charitable reading of Slings and Arrow's argument.

He is saying that these devices were not ever dangerous, that the Dems are making too much of it because like everything else he lists, it is fake and/or the fault of the Dems.
Click to expand...

Well that really is the government's official position now.
 
crescent said:
Chairs break, and bombs don't always explode.

However, one is more common than the other, such that there is a word for one, and not the other.

A chair that breaks is still just a chair, albeit a broken one. There is no word that means "broken chair".

A bomb that fails to blow up is a dud. Not fake, just a dud. Still a bomb, but common enough to have a name to differentiate it from other bombs.


I read a book about the Unibomber. It took him a fair bit of tries to get it right. One thing the book pointed out is that letter/parcel bombs can are hard to do. It needs to survive being tossed and handled, flipped on its side or upside down, crushed under other packages, bounced around in trucks in hot and cold environments with variable humidity and air pressure, for an indeterminate amount of time, all without blowing up. It can't leak, or smell, or smoke, or tick. And that was all in the days before we had scanners and various detection machinery built into mail processing facilities.

Then it needs to blow up based on an action as simple as opening a box or envelope. It can't be disarmed if the person opens it an unexpected way.

If this was the bomber's first try, they may really just be duds, intended to go of but failing to succeed.
Click to expand...

At the beginning, were those prototypes or also duds?
 
uke2se said:
I think I'll bookmark this thread for future reference. That all the Trumpettes posting here are promoting conspiracy theories to avoid facing the very strong possibility that this was an attempt at mass murder against political opponents and that it was one of their very angry and very stupid fellow Trump sycophants perpetrating it... it's kind of beautiful.

I mean, it's horrid, but it has a certain beauty if you ever need to explain to someone what Trumpists are like. This thread is a perfect example.

And maybe, Dog willing, at some point in the future it could be used as a form of shock therapy in an intervention to get a Trumpist to snap back to reality. "Look what you did! What you became!"
Click to expand...

Your optimism is inspiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom