14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[McHrozni]

What

Even all the black ones?

I hope this helps:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

Second meaning.

If English is too hard for you we can try some other languagues too. Are you more proficient in some other languague perhaps?

It does have a name

It is called you using false dichotomy.

Edit: Actually might have that wrong.

False dilemma

Ah, found it: Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle

Except of course you're claiming I'm claiming that and concluding it's false, so it's really just the good old strawman.

"Most Trump supporters are racists, therefore this Trump supporter is likely a racist" is a logical conslusion, not a fallacy.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

I hope this helps:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

Second meaning.

If English is too hard for you we can try some other languagues too. Are you more proficient in some other languague perhaps?



Ah, found it: Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle

Except of course you're claiming I'm claiming that and concluding it's false, so it's really just the good old strawman.

"Most Trump supporters are racists, therefore this Trump supporter is likely a racist" is a logical conslusion, not a fallacy.

McHrozni

No it isn't

It is a fallacy

And there also happens to be zero evidence the kid getting beaten up by the twice as big psycho chick did anything.

But feel free to provide if you have it.

None of the statements say the kid did.

People are at pains to make excuses there is no hat on here so it isn't nutty lefty causing violence, while at the same time still use the hat as a reason he must have been the bully.

It is extremely humorous

 

[McHrozni]

No it isn't

It is a fallacy

Really? Please explain what is so fallacious about it.

Use the following equivalent:

Most dogs are covered by hair.
Creature A is a dog.
It is likely creature A is covered by hair.

May the Force Be With You!

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

Really? Please explain what is so fallacious about it.

Use the following equivalent:

Most dogs are covered by hair.
Creature A is a dog.
Creature A is probably covered by hair.

May the Force Be With You!

McHrozni

Part of it where you exaggerate how many republican candidate voters are likely to be racist.

I know it suits certain peoples agenda to portray it as all personalised to Trump, but is becoming a bit tired, when you take into account the mass amount of people that just either have always voted for the Republican one or the Democrat one cos their dad did and their grandaddy did .... and only even take an interest properly at election time.

In fact this kid is living proof, as I doubt he knows jack about Trumps political policy. If he does he desperately needs to get laid

 

[McHrozni]

Part of it where you exaggerate how many republican candidate voters are likely to be racist.

At most you're arguing my premise was wrong. As the name implies a logical fallacy means the logic behind it is flawed. It is not.

I know it suits certain peoples agenda to portray it as all personalised to Trump, but is becoming a bit tired, when you take into account the mass amount of people that just either have always voted for the Republican one or the Democrat one cos their dad did and their grandaddy did .... and only even take an interest properly at election time.

Trump supporters does not equal people who vote for Trump. Trump has a meaningful number of supporters overseas, he has a meaningful number of supporters among people who don't or can't vote in the US and so on. What on Earth makes you think I consider a 14-year old Florida boy a Trump voter anyway?

In fact this kid is living proof, as I doubt he knows jack about Trumps political policy. If he does he desperately needs to get laid

Most Trump supporters have no idea of Trump policial policy. Heck, I'm not sure if Trump even has a policy beyond "wing it!". His supporters just like how he hates the right groups of people. One of those groups are people with darker skin. People who support a person because he's hostile to people of the wrong race are racists.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

At most you're arguing my premise was wrong. As the name implies a logical fallacy means the logic behind it is flawed. It is not.



Trump supporters does not equal people who vote for Trump. Trump has a meaningful number of supporters overseas, he has a meaningful number of supporters among people who don't or can't vote in the US and so on. What on Earth makes you think I consider a 14-year old Florida boy a Trump voter anyway?



Most Trump supporters have no idea of Trump policial policy. Heck, I'm not sure if Trump even has a policy beyond "wing it!". His supporters just like how he hates the right groups of people. One of those groups are people with darker skin. People who support a person because he's hostile to people of the wrong race are racists.

McHrozni

The people who get Trump in are Republican voters, probably 99.9% are still living in the US. You have said most of them are racist

Own it

 

[McHrozni]

The people who get Trump in are Republican voters, probably 99.9% are still living in the US. You have said most of them are racist

Own it

There is obviously a considerable overlap between Trump voters and Trump supporter. A good number of Trump voters would also be racists, of course. Majority seems entirely plausible.

But I'm curious as to what I'm supposed to "own" here. "Most Trump voters are racists" seems about as earth-shattering as "Water is wet".

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

There is obviously a considerable overlap between Trump voters and Trump supporter. A good number of Trump voters would also be racists, of course. Majority seems entirely plausible.

But I'm curious as to what I'm supposed to "own" here. "Most Trump voters are racists" seems about as earth-shattering as "Water is wet".

McHrozni

....So the kid being beaten up by the nutter is probably racist

Hence your false dilemma.

Why not show some actual proof they are?

 

[McHrozni]

....So the kid being beaten up by the nutter is probably racist

Yes.

Hence your false dilemma.

False dilemma between ...?

Why not show some actual proof they are?

He wore a KAGA hat to school.

There is a strong correlation between supporting Trump and being a racist and a strong causal correlation between supporting Trump and wearing a KAGA hat. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the kid is also a racist hick.

I'm still waiting to see what is wrong with the deduction.

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

Sorry mate. Seen you say this a couple of times. What is a KAGA hat?

From what I read it was just Trump for 2020

 

[cullennz]

And no

There is a strong correlation to you

 

[McHrozni]

Sorry mate. Seen you say this a couple of times. What is a KAGA hat?

Keep America GreAt hat, also known as Trump 2020 hat.

From what I read it was just Trump for 2020

Keep America Great has been the Trump 2020 slogan since 2016. KAG lacks one letter and KAGA seems appropriate - not least because of IJN Kaga.

McHrozni

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems like this kid was dealing with a nasty bullying problem, or at least an ongoing conflict with other students. This isn't particularly uncommon in our schools. Perhaps his Trump hat had something to do with it, but evidence of this claim is lacking.
The assailants will get a trip through the criminal justice system, which likely will lack any of the resources to deal with whatever underlying emotional and psychological problems.

All that matters is the headline, propaganda at work.

So yeah, some kid with an ongoing history of conflict with known individuals becomes an unprovoked assault based on political animus. Headline will read "child targeted for beating for wearing Trump hat" and the MAGA chuds will lap it up. Anything to prove that white Trump supporters are the real oppressed minority.

In MAGA land, schoolyard bullying becomes political violence. A few bruises to the head becomes attempted murder. Oh hey, what's that hiding in the subtext black kids are a danger to white kids

 

[Thermal]

I only provided a direct link for people to click on, so yeah obviously I was trying to hide something there. Golly, nothing gets by you.



LOL, really?

Oh, I'm so sorry - is the American Heritage Dictionary not an approved authoritative source or something? I look forward to your explanation of why, if you want to bother; but it's not necessary I suppose. It must be one of those things all dedicated pedants "just know" - I confess I'm not really in that loop.

No, Checkmite. The fact that we both know you searched through pages of definitions before finding that is funny.

And my god, dude, I already handed you the win and you still won't stop?

Okay then, how about the Oxford Dictionary?



Let me guess, "everyone knows" that the Oxford is worth double eye-rolls; it only powers both Google's and Bing's definition services in addition to being...well, Oxford.

Seriously? You are relying on synonyms for definitions, now? I already addressed this, btw: 'a few' is listed as synonymous with 'a lot'. Synonyms are contextually fun like that.

The issue, as I spelled out with painful clarity for you, is how much time you evidently spent definition-mining, only to come up with a fairly obscure reference (which you botched the pronoun/adjective usage of anyway) that you then felt the need to be vague about. "the dictionary says' is hardly honest when pages of commonly cited dictionaries do not.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the fact that there's differing opinions on the matter from several/a few/some/a handful of authoritative sources is the reason why silly "aha, you used THIS word, not THAT word!"...

Wait, what? There are no differing opinions. Here, let me remind you:

the two terms mean literally the exact same thing and are freely interchangeable in any circumstance

Merriam Webster agrees with me that "several denotes more than the words couple and few do". I didn't even need to trawl through pages of results to find self serving definitions.

... nitpicking like this which you so love to engage in is a pointless waste of time, and why it's disingenuous at the very least to claim that somebody's using one term versus the other must be a deliberate attempt to "subtly change facts".

Give me a ******* break. I have asked three times if we can drop this, and you still keep it going. So for the fourth time: You win. Few and several have identical definitions, no contest. Can we be done with this floundering now? I asked about a fumble you made regarding the hat. How long are you going to try to misdirect from that? It's over.

 

[varwoche]

What

Even all the black ones?

First, few versus several. Next, all versus most?

The former: whatever
The latter: actual steaming BS

 

[Checkmite]

No, Checkmite. The fact that we both know you searched through pages of definitions before finding that is funny.

No, silly. It was the very first link I found, at the top of the search results when I searched.

Seriously? You are relying on synonyms for definitions, now?

"Now"? No, silly - my sole and only argument has been that the two terms are synonyms.

Remember the quote:

the two terms mean literally the exact same thing and are freely interchangeable in any circumstance

The name of that concept is "synonym". Further assistance if needed.

Merriam Webster agrees with me that "several denotes more than the words couple and few do".

And the Oxford Dictionary agrees with me that the two are synonymous. Now what?

Give me a ******* break. I have asked three times if we can drop this, and you still keep it going.

Yes I've noticed; it's one of your established patterns: post a long argument, and then at the very end throw in a plea to "drop it" so that your argument can stand unchallenged and you can complain that any attempt at a rebuttal is just dragging something out that you've "already conceded". For what it's worth, it's not a pattern unique to you, it's a common rhetorical tactic. It's also a bad faith tactic, but I'm used to those by now.

 

[Thermal]

No, silly. It was the very first link I found, at the top of the search results when I searched.

I don't believe that the American Heritage Dictionary somehow mysteriously topped your google or duckduckgo search, while not appearing on the first four pages of mine. But I will argue no further on this point and let you have the last word. Happy?

"Now"? No, silly - my sole and only argument has been that the two terms are synonyms.

Remember the quote:



The name of that concept is "synonym". Further assistance if needed.




And the Oxford Dictionary agrees with me that the two are synonymous. Now what?

Now we refer you to what a synonym actually is. As I offered twice, 'a few' is a listed synonym for 'a lot'. Synonyms do not mean the exact same thing, nor are they always interchangeable in every instance. Context and all. This is grade school level stuff.

We can allow your claim to bask in the sight of whatever readers there may be: Checkmite thinks synonyms "mean literally the exact same thing and are freely interchangeable in any circumstance". But I will argue no further on this point and let you have the last word. Happy?

Yes I've noticed; it's one of your established patterns: post a long argument, and then at the very end throw in a plea to "drop it" so that your argument can stand unchallenged and you can complain that any attempt at a rebuttal is just dragging something out that you've "already conceded". For what it's worth, it's not a pattern unique to you, it's a common rhetorical tactic. It's also a bad faith tactic, but I'm used to those by now.

And you do exactly the same posting a long argument, but try to keep dragging it on and on. Ad nauseum. But I will argue no further on this point and let you have the last word. Happy?

eta: and Happy Holidays to you. I mean that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Boy attacked by teens on school bus fought with younger sibling, police say

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/boy-attacked-teens-school-bus-fought-with-younger-sibling-police-say/iBvhpCAjBqslGq440LELLL/

The boy was attacked as a retaliation by the older sibling of a student that there was a prior conflict with. This isn't apologism for what accounts to a intense beating by children, but it doesn't fall into the "targeted for MAGA hat narrative".

The boy had some prior squabble with another student around his age, then that student's older family organized a retaliatory beating. I'm not seeing anything that supports the mother's narrative that he was targeted for his MAGA hat.

Of course, in MAGA world, this doesn't matter. The story is over, and the initial headline was all they wanted anyway.

This is an unrelated school bus group beating. Whoops... thanks Thermal for pointing this out.

 

[Thermal]

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/boy-attacked-teens-school-bus-fought-with-younger-sibling-police-say/iBvhpCAjBqslGq440LELLL/

The boy was attacked as a retaliation by the older sibling of a student that there was a prior conflict with. This isn't apologism for what accounts to a intense beating by children, but it doesn't fall into the "targeted for MAGA hat narrative".

The boy had some prior squabble with another student around his age, then that student's older family organized a retaliatory beating. I'm not seeing anything that supports the mother's narrative that he was targeted for his MAGA hat.

Of course, in MAGA world, this doesn't matter. The story is over, and the initial headline was all they wanted anyway.

You might want to revisit the article you linked. It's completely unrelated to the OP incident.

The victim is a 10 year old boy, and the attackers include a 17 and 18 year old. This attack didn't even occur in the same state (Fla v Ga)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You might want to revisit the article you linked. It's completely unrelated to the OP incident.

The victim is a 10 year old boy, and the attackers include a 17 and 18 year old. This attack didn't even occur in the same state (Fla v Ga)

Mea Culpa.

I guess there was another group beating of a student on a school bus that resulted in a hospital trip. Gonna take the hard L on this one.

I followed a link from the comments section of some report of the original story. I should know better than that.