Well join us back at the adult table when you have an actual argument instead of just a problem then.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Rioters storm and occupy the US Capitol - part 2
- Thread starter sackett
- Start date
Well join us back at the adult table when you have an actual argument instead of just a problem then.
Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,811
This is turning into the 'divide by zero' error in conversational form.
I have stated, restated, over and over...I'm done with that portion of the program.
I feel like you may be engaging in selective reading.
Whatever the case, it makes no matter.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Even if this were true, which is not a given, so what?
If I believed that you were a paedophile and shot you dead, according to your argument I would be doing the wrong thing for a good reason, and therefore shooting you dead would be in part commendable.
So, should I shoot you?
Belz...
Fiend God
It befits your selective writing.
If you believed I was a pedo, and you shot me dead, one might commend you for having the courage of your convictions...but also condemn you for your murderous actions.
Nope, they were attempting to prevent an legitimate election from being certified; they were insurrectionists spurred on by the candidate that lost the election in his bid to remain in power. They deliberately ignored the evidence that there was no wide-spread voter fraud and reacted with nothing but ignorant emotion.
There actions were hardly "commendable."
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I disagree. Restraint is a principle of value in itself, and a part of the rule of law which the insurrectionists wish to overturn.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,910
What that does for me is underscore that there's a moral component to diligently fact checking. If someone believes something untrue, they may feel morally compelled to act on it, and that puts significant responsibility on the person who convinced them of it.
Why can't people understand the difference between:
1) Commending someone for taking action for a seemingly noble cause
(I am not getting into the cause debate any further; it has been well covered)
And
2) Commending someone for their specific actions
It seems very simple, but I am done repeating it.
Belz...
Fiend God
Because there's no difference, as we're talking about a specific action. You misspoke. Admit it, and move on.
Absolutely. Sometimes not acting on your convictions is the more courageous option.
As for Warps point. You can't separate the fact they acted on their convictions from the actions themselves. These things don't exist in a vacuum.
Yes it has, and not it your favor.
It was a poorly reasoned argument; well done to abandon it.
This is what I mean when I say trying to separate discussions of moral standards from discussions of intellectual standards is impossible.
The fact that there was no election fraud isn't some small little piddling detail we can put to the side to discuss some other point.
The fact that there was no election fraud isn't some small little piddling detail we can put to the side to discuss some other point.
Last edited:
I actually added that for clarification because it apparently wasn't obvious enough to some people. I mean, we all pretty much agree that the election wasn't stolen, right? So any illusions of such would be in "their minds".
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Here, I'll try to summarize what I take from all this.
Taking action for the sake of noble principle is commendable, as a general matter. Even if they were doing so for noble principle (which I would consider rather doubtful, personally), though, that's not the only factor in play when evaluating an action, and in cases like the one in play, the other factors make it pretty clear that the action is, overall, contemptible.
Just to poke at this, it's probably also worth remembering that Fox also played up a bunch of distrustful CTs on the subject before and after.
Last edited:
Frankly, I don't know what you are talking about.
My viewpoint hasn't changed. In fact, I am pretty amazed by the resistance to it. In many of the other sub-forums, people seem to deal with things in a much less emotionally-driven manner, tbh.
But hey, it's "Social Issues", so that is to be expected. Anyway, I'm done with this particular debate.
Last edited: