14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump

[Thermal]

...Which is standard MO. Nothing meets the bar, nothing is proven, therefore....whatever your desired outcome is. This is what happens every time. That's why I'm so confused that this is considered skepticism. Seems the opposite to me.

Right, I argue this point a lot. The story, as told, is pretty much a nothing burger. It only gets legs and takes off when a trendy narrative gets propped up on it.

That is my argument, over and over, on these threads. I am challenging the accompanying narrative. People suck it up unquestioningly, often not even realizing they are doing it.

 

[plague311]

Right, I argue this point a lot. The story, as told, is pretty much a nothing burger. It only gets legs and takes off when a trendy narrative gets propped up on it.

That is my argument, over and over, on these threads. I am challenging the accompanying narrative. People suck it up unquestioningly, often not even realizing they are doing it.

Yeah, you're amazing. It takes skill to dismiss evidence, repeat baseless assertions, and ignore things that directly refute the point you're attempting to make. In the process you showed an absolute bias towards one group of people, while coddling and supporting the other all while trying to sell this "man in the middle" mindset. It's so transparent.

The difference between us? I can at least admit when I'm wrong or when I've made a mistake. That's something I guess skeptics don't do. Keep up the good work. You're a beacon in the darkness to us all.

 

[theprestige]

Which is standard MO. Nothing meets the bar, nothing is proven, therefore....whatever your desired outcome is. This is what happens every time. That's why I'm so confused that this is considered skepticism. Seems the opposite to me.

There's a standard MO on this forum to traduce an inconclusive or inconsequential story into a meaningful narrative. This is profoundly anti-skeptical. The anti-skepticism is then compounded by everybody piling on the one or two people who still try to argue for a skeptical approach to the story.

The only "desired outcome" is that if something doesn't meet the bar, if something isn't proven, these facts should be acknowledged and accepted.

And if, over and over again, in each of these stories, if nothing ever meets the bar, and nothing is ever proven, then you have way worse problems than Thermal consistently pointing it out when it happens. Stop taking it out on Thermal, and start worrying about why the hell this keeps happening.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Right, I argue this point a lot. The story, as told, is pretty much a nothing burger. It only gets legs and takes off when a trendy narrative gets propped up on it.

That is my argument, over and over, on these threads. I am challenging the accompanying narrative. People suck it up unquestioningly, often not even realizing they are doing it.

The narrative being argued as I understand it is:

This kid was beaten because of a red 'trump' hat and the associated politics.

The only evidence of this is a claim by the political Trump supporting mother.

Challenging this narrative would be to ask for evidence of the mother's claim, for which there is no support.

The school does not site the hat nor politics as the reason for the beating.
The police do not site the hat or politics as the reason for the beating.
There is evidence of a previous altercation which also does not reference the hat or politics.

Sorry, I don't see you challenging the narrative but rather supporting it.

In the LWB threads you discount the claims that the incidents were due to race, that being the claim of the people involved. Yet, in this case, it is a claim by the mother who was not involved in the incident but to you it is unassailable? Seems inconsistent to me.

But, do carry on.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, you're amazing. It takes skill to dismiss evidence, repeat baseless assertions, and ignore things that directly refute the point you're attempting to make. In the process you showed an absolute bias towards one group of people, while coddling and supporting the other all while trying to sell this "man in the middle" mindset. It's so transparent.

The difference between us? I can at least admit when I'm wrong or when I've made a mistake. That's something I guess skeptics don't do. Keep up the good work. You're a beacon in the darkness to us all.

...says the adult who refers to a silent child as 'little Tyler-poo, the *******'.

We've made our respective points, I think.

 

[Thermal]

The narrative being argued as I understand it is:

The only evidence of this is a claim by the political Trump supporting mother.

Challenging this narrative would be to ask for evidence of the mother's claim, for which there is no support.

The school does not site the hat nor politics as the reason for the beating.
The police do not site the hat or politics as the reason for the beating.
There is evidence of a previous altercation which also does not reference the hat or politics.

Sorry, I don't see you challenging the narrative but rather supporting it.

In the LWB threads you discount the claims that the incidents were due to race, that being the claim of the people involved. Yet, in this case, it is a claim by the mother who was not involved in the incident but to you it is unassailable? Seems inconsistent to me.

But, do carry on.

Addressed earlier. I question all narratives that are tacked on to a story. Here, I have said I am highly skeptical of the mom. But I do not claim she has a psychotic break because of her retweets, and I do not dismiss outright her claims because I disagree with her politics.

Oh, and are yoh sure the discussion has only two sides? I count like four.

But do carry on.

 

[qayak]

I'm still not making a claim. I am reading words in the English language. You and plague311 are claiming absence of evidence is positively evidence of absence, which doesn't really need to be argued in depth; it's a common fallacy.

You are making a claim. You are also dismissing all the evidence from the investigation. Your argument is that of the "invisible dragon in the garage" variety. Carl Sagan discusses it at length in his TDHW book. In this case, because of the very limited size and scope of the incident we can, an do know about the hats role. It played none.

 

[Thermal]

There's a standard MO on this forum to traduce an inconclusive or inconsequential story into a meaningful narrative. This is profoundly anti-skeptical. The anti-skepticism is then compounded by everybody piling on the one or two people who still try to argue for a skeptical approach to the story.

The only "desired outcome" is that if something doesn't meet the bar, if something isn't proven, these facts should be acknowledged and accepted.

And if, over and over again, in each of these stories, if nothing ever meets the bar, and nothing is ever proven, then you have way worse problems than Thermal consistently pointing it out when it happens. Stop taking it out on Thermal, and start worrying about why the hell this keeps happening.

This here is some Truth with a capital T

 

[plague311]

This here is some Truth with a capital T

Shocking, the guy that agreed with you is telling the truth lol. More skepticism I see.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[plague311]

The narrative being argued as I understand it is:



The only evidence of this is a claim by the political Trump supporting mother.



Challenging this narrative would be to ask for evidence of the mother's claim, for which there is no support.



The school does not site the hat nor politics as the reason for the beating.

The police do not site the hat or politics as the reason for the beating.

There is evidence of a previous altercation which also does not reference the hat or politics.



Sorry, I don't see you challenging the narrative but rather supporting it.



In the LWB threads you discount the claims that the incidents were due to race, that being the claim of the people involved. Yet, in this case, it is a claim by the mother who was not involved in the incident but to you it is unassailable? Seems inconsistent to me.



But, do carry on.

Exactly my point. Thank you for phrasing it way better than I could.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

Shocking, the guy that agreed with you is telling the truth lol. More skepticism I see.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm quite happy to agree with a reasoned position rather than keep company with adults cursing out silent children.

 

[plague311]

Yeah, I'm quite happy to agree with a reasoned position rather than keep company with adults cursing out silent children.

You mean like calling them self serving or is it just the language you're pretentiously pearl clutching about? That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You're basically accusing a child of being selfish after being accused, by you, of being a monster and the aggressor. Like I said, save your faux outrage for someone that would actually buy it.

 

[Thermal]

You mean like calling them self serving or is it just the language you're pretentiously pearl clutching about? That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You're basically accusing a child of being selfish after being accused, by you, of being a monster and the aggressor. Like I said, save your faux outrage for someone that would actually buy it.

It's not outrage at all, scooter. Its highlighting which arguments are rational and which are bat **** crazy.

I accused her of being a monster, you say? Please show the quote.

You're down to bald faced lying now, plague. I think we're done here.

 

[plague311]

It's not outrage at all, scooter. Its highlighting which arguments are rational and which are bat **** crazy.



I accused her of being a monster, you say? Please show the quote.



You're down to bald faced lying now, plague. I think we're done here.

Toodles.

 

[plague311]

Yeah, it was sadistic. But I think that is plus or minus the norm anymore. Kids don't 'fight fair' anymore. They go MMA, not M of Q.

Oh, I'm sorry. You called her sadistic. That's WAY different.

You're right, we are done here. Thanks.

 

[chrispy]

Well, this thread certainly has become more interesting recently!

 

[novaphile]

Yeah, most of us just say post hoc fallacy. Definition link unnecessary.

Are you making an assertion here? Are you saying the hat was not the initial triggering of the bullying? On what evidence or assumption do you assert this?

Yes.

The mother, quoted in the post I highlighted, specifically stated this.

The bullying was happening before.

He wore a hat to school.

The bullying intensified some time after he wore the hat to school.

There is no causation in evidence. Hence post hoc...

 

[Thermal]

Yes.

The mother, quoted in the post I highlighted, specifically stated this.

The bullying was happening before.

He wore a hat to school.

The bullying intensified some time after he wore the hat to school.

There is no causation in evidence. Hence post hoc...

I didn't see anything about the bullying happening prior to allegedly wearing the hat. Where did you see that? And the mother said it was immediately upon wearing the hat, not some unknown time later. The mother said, from the OP article:

He wore it to School, but due to immediate bullying he put it away & didn't wear it to school again, sadly the damage was already done & [he] was now a target,' she said.

'From that point on he was steadily getting messed with. He was getting hit, tripped & verbally abused on the bus, but it all came to a head yesterday on his bus ride home,' she continued.

Bolding mine. She is saying that the problem started with, and because of, the hat. she may be wrong, or misreading, or lying, but I don't see the post hoc in play.

It's fair to question that, of course. She has no evidence (although without video rolling at the time, I'm not sure what exactly would constitute evidence. Confession from her attacker? Witnesses, who would likely be the other attackers?). So yeah, we can suspend belief. But you are arguing that what she says is simply fallacious? Why?

 

[Giordano]

I didn't see anything about the bullying happening prior to allegedly wearing the hat. Where did you see that? And the mother said it was immediately upon wearing the hat, not some unknown time later. The mother said, from the OP article:



Bolding mine. She is saying that the problem started with, and because of, the hat. she may be wrong, or misreading, or lying, but I don't see the post hoc in play.

It's fair to question that, of course. She has no evidence (although without video rolling at the time, I'm not sure what exactly would constitute evidence. Confession from her attacker? Witnesses, who would likely be the other attackers?). So yeah, we can suspend belief. But you are arguing that what she says is simply fallacious? Why?

Your quote does not state that the bullying began with the hat, just that bullying occurred immediate to it. It could have been long standing prior to the hat wearing. Are their other quotes that more clearly state the bullying began with the hat?

But I am still struck by how you lean so strongly toward the mom’s ability to mind read motivation in others when you are so skeptical of the same in the “... while black” threads.

 

[Thermal]

Your quote does not state that the bullying began with the hat, just that bullying occurred immediate to it. It could have been long standing prior to the hat wearing. Are their other quotes that more clearly state the bullying began with the hat?

She said the bullying was immediate, and 'from that point on'. There is no ambiguity there. Unless you expect pages of explanation to preface her statement, it is clear that she says the first wearing of the hat started the bullying and escalation.

But I am still struck by how you lean so strongly toward the mom’s ability to mind read motivation in others when you are so skeptical of the same in the “... while black” threads.

Ok, let's go cards-on-the-table, shall we?

You repeatedly compare my comments here to the LWB threads. You are quite unabashedly implying that I am a racist conservative fascist whatever. Please don't deny this; you have been quite insistent about it.

Now, let's assume, just for the moment and in the spirit of the holidays, that I have been posting honestly. That I joined this forum and log in specifically to discuss things skeptically, and challenge my thinking and base assumptions as well as other's. That I find baggage attached to LWB threads and a lot of SI&CE stories. Are you still 'struck' by why I am questioning why this mom's politics are influencing posters' impression of her? Play skeptic, just for a second: is she psychotic because she occasionally retweets a trolly comic meme?

I have posted pro-antifa, pro- UHC, pro-equal funding for public schools, and other fairly hard left political positions, in addition to supporting the narrative on some LWB threads. Does this 'strike' you too? No? But you claim to opine on my body of work here. Little selective about what you choose to look at, I see.

So try for a second to assume I am not a liar when you read my postings. Just for fun. You might find that challenging base assumptions is kind of an obsession of mine, and it is most glaring on threads like these (I don't go into the cesspool of USA politics, because posts there are proudly closed minded). My comments tend to focus on calling out the baggage. There is a **** ton of it when it comes to Agent Orange and race.

I'll keep calling it out. You are free to insinuate that I have an alternate agenda. And I'll call that out too.

Eta: Can't make that stupid face up top go away