• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

qayak said:
I am not glad he got punched in the head but I am good with it. Not losing sleep.
Click to expand...


How are you "good with it"?

In that he deserved it?

You don't care as he was a young Trump 2020 hat 14 year old and you don't like Trump?

Or you just don't care as you don't know him, so who cares?
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
What has the date of your original post, insisting that nobody would endorse violence, got to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Because if I hadn't seen it when I made the post...then...come on...connect the dots...you can do it!

bluesjnr said:
*snipped so I don't have to read it again*
Click to expand...

You are way overestimating the amount of effort put into this and this back breaking quip isn't quite as awesome as I think you think it is. I'm sorry this is such a big deal to you, but if you find one or two people on a forum of around 900 (in a thread with 6500+ views and 290 posts) that condones this, while everyone else is saying how terrible it is, and that's the victory you need. Raise the headboard bro, you did it. It seems like a really empty victory to me, and I have no idea why you guys engage him considering he holds such an outlandish view that a kid should be beaten, but if that's the victory lap you need. Take it.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Because if I hadn't seen it when I made the post...then...come on...connect the dots...you can do it!



You are way overestimating the amount of effort put into this and this back breaking quip isn't quite as awesome as I think you think it is. I'm sorry this is such a big deal to you, but if you find one or two people on a forum of around 900 (in a thread with 6500+ views and 290 posts) that condones this, while everyone else is saying how terrible it is, and that's the victory you need. Raise the headboard bro, you did it. It seems like a really empty victory to me, and I have no idea why you guys engage him considering he holds such an outlandish view that a kid should be beaten, but if that's the victory lap you need. Take it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you've delivered in every way imaginable; every possible way.

Please be mindful that we wouldn't be discussing this if you hadn't had that attack of the vapours when you read my post.

We can drop it now.
 
bluesjnr said:
Thanks, you've delivered in every way imaginable; every possible way.

Please be mindful that we wouldn't be discussing this if you hadn't had that attack of the vapours when you read my post.

We can drop it now.
Click to expand...

The **** does "attack of the vapors" mean? Nothing I said was wrong. I hadn't seen it, he hadn't posted it, so...

Thanks, you've delivered in every way imaginable; every possible way.
 
plague311 said:
Can you please explain to me, in your own words, what you interpret Thermal's skeptical position to be? I'm just curious as I love to learn about skepticism! It appears to me to mostly have been baseless claims with no supporting evidence riddled with hyperbole, anecdotal evidence, and actually making claims against the evidence that is available.

Perhaps we have different definitions of skepticism?
Click to expand...

Thermal is arguing for less unfounded speculation, fewer logical fallacies, more respect for the limits of the available evidence, and more acknowledgement of the potential failure modes of third-party accounts.

Solid skeptical stuff.

Thermal's arguments (or discussion of Thermal's arguments) seem to be causing some frustration, given the tone of your reply to me. Why is that?
 
theprestige said:
Thermal is arguing for less unfounded speculation, fewer logical fallacies, more respect for the limits of the available evidence, and more acknowledgement of the potential failure modes of third-party accounts.

Solid skeptical stuff.

Thermal's arguments (or discussion of Thermal's arguments) seem to be causing some frustration, given the tone of your reply to me. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I didn't think I could possibly make it clearer. What you seem to find as solid skeptical stuff, I obviously, clearly don't agree. I also disagree with your characterization of it, so not much else to discuss.
 
plague311 said:
I didn't think I could possibly make it clearer. What you seem to find as solid skeptical stuff, I obviously, clearly don't agree. I also disagree with your characterization of it, so not much else to discuss.
Click to expand...

We could discuss my characterization of it. We could compare it to yours and debate the relative merits. There's a lot to discuss, I think. Do you want to discuss it?
 
theprestige said:
We could discuss my characterization of it. We could compare it to yours and debate the relative merits. There's a lot to discuss, I think. Do you want to discuss it?
Click to expand...

If you feel there's something to be said. We've done this before in every other LWB thread though, with the same actors. I get it, there's never enough evidence, it's completely against skepticism to come to any conclusion, and then we go round and round.

You say he's all for fewer logical fallacies, which I find to be complete nonsense. The last part I don't really even want to parse, but whatever. Lets get our pedantic on, I've got nothing to do today.
 
cullennz said:
How are you "good with it"?
Click to expand...

I'm good with it in the sense that in the grand scheme of things this is a pretty minor event with nothing but a little pain to the kid. He didn't catch a few high powered rifle rounds just for showing up to school, receive a life altering beating from police because of the colour of his skin, or die in a hospital waiting room because no one gives a **** about a homeless person.

Hard to get outraged about this one, the little dickwad who was asked to help clean out the school toilets after he and a friend vandalized them, or the kid who got a zero on his test. There are real problems and then there are the problems of entitled snowflakes with huge victim mentalities. How this one even made the news is beyond me but snowflakes with victim mentalities always seem to have media access. (No, really it's just that nothing sells like manufactured outrage.)
 
qayak said:
I'm good with it in the sense that in the grand scheme of things this is a pretty minor event with nothing but a little pain to the kid. He didn't catch a few high powered rifle rounds just for showing up to school, receive a life altering beating from police because of the colour of his skin, or die in a hospital waiting room because no one gives a **** about a homeless person.

Hard to get outraged about this one, the little dickwad who was asked to help clean out the school toilets after he and a friend vandalized them, or the kid who got a zero on his test. There are real problems and then there are the problems of entitled snowflakes with huge victim mentalities. How this one even made the news is beyond me but snowflakes with victim mentalities always seem to have media access. (No, really it's just that nothing sells like manufactured outrage.)
Click to expand...

Might be wrong, but I'm guessing your boarder line between snowflakery and genuine victim, is a tad biased depending on the person being pummeled.
 
Some people are working very hard to express their feeling of persecution.
 
cullennz said:
Said "might"

Probably should have "doubt I am wrong"
Click to expand...

You do love your faux-outrage. The story as reported in the OP is ********! It had nothing to do with a Trump hat. It was simply a verbal disagreement that escalated. The mother embellished the story with the hat claim, the claim that there were 8 assailants, and making a mountain out of a mole hill with the SOP head injury handout.

Basically a bunch of ultra-right wing-nuts sending out another fake rally cry to rile up the deplorables.
 
qayak said:
You do love your faux-outrage. The story as reported in the OP is ********! It had nothing to do with a Trump hat. It was simply a verbal disagreement that escalated. The mother embellished the story with the hat claim, the claim that there were 8 assailants, and making a mountain out of a mole hill with the SOP head injury handout.

Basically a bunch of ultra-right wing-nuts sending out another fake rally cry to rile up the deplorables.
Click to expand...

I haven't said on this thread much about the Trump hat apart from pointing out it wasn't a MAGA hat.

The hat is irrelevant as I keep repeating.

I'm not particularly outraged either.

Apart from pointing out you seeming to defend a kid being beaten repeatedly by a nutcase and some how it is ok
 
Is it literally even possible to have this discussion devoid of context (if you want to look it one way) or baggage (if you want to look at it the other?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom