Exarchia - It has begun

[caveman1917]

Dammit, if you are going to start a revolution you need to have some halfway decent shots on your side...

It's not my problem that you don't understand the concept of warning shots.

 

[caveman1917]

No, you seem to just have decided we throw them out arbitrarily if they disagree with us.

Or, as Wolrab explicitly did, throw them out because he considered it personally insulting. Which is probably even worse.

And to do this, you need to employ critical thinking. Such as being highly sceptical of political blogs, articles with anonymous authors, and so on.

But your critical thinking doesn't include being highly skeptical of government claims even though there's obvious bias (a government that tries to divert from socio-economic problems by having an anti-refugee campaign)? It doesn't include being highly skeptical of sources owned by the same group of people (the rich bourgeoisie) who has a direct financial interest in this (ie buying up apartments at low prices to then "fancy up" the neighbourhood and rake in the cash when renting those premises out as AirBNBs)? Critical thinking that's only applied to one set of sources and not another is not critical thinking at all, it's simply bias.

A priori there is no preference for either set of sources, critical thinking is identifying on which claims the sources contradict each other and then checking which of them is correct, and then adjusting their credibility based on the result. If you (plural) had done that you'd quickly have considered my sources credible and government sources incredible. As for anonymous authors, only a couple of sources had anonymous authors for obvious reasons - someone claiming to have attacked police isn't going to include their name and address in said claims, now are they?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Ignoring that police forces and fascists have a large overlap. Ignoring that homosexuals had no problems in Exarchia until the police came. Ignoring that some refugee squats have indeed been attacked and burned down by fascists about a year ago, after which the local anarchists organized self-defense and patrols in the neighbourhood. Ignoring that...

Dodge noted.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Or, as Wolrab explicitly did, throw them out because he considered it personally insulting. Which is probably even worse.

He... didn't. Try reading your own post one more time, and then his reply.
ETA: also, whataboutism much?

But your critical thinking doesn't include being highly skeptical of government claims even though there's obvious bias (a government that tries to divert from socio-economic problems by having an anti-refugee campaign)?

Of course it does. We're critical of both sides. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't go around believing the Greek police or government are perfect and can do no wrong.

You, however, seem to buy anything so long as it comes from some edgy blog.

It doesn't include being highly skeptical of sources owned by the same group of people (the rich bourgeoisie) who has a direct financial interest in this (ie buying up apartments at low prices to then "fancy up" the neighbourhood and rake in the cash when renting those premises out as AirBNBs)?

Dude, get your stories straight. This is getting ridiculous.

Only a few posts ago you were lamenting how the buildings were walled up and that their owners wanted to just let them sit there uninhabited for some reason, and that they thus had no reason to throw the squatters out. Now you're going on about some evil scheme to develop and rent apartments. By rich people, no less. The absolute horror.

 

[caveman1917]

He... didn't. Try reading your own post one more time, and then his reply.

Yes he explicitly did:

They are insults. See, that is how I judge your bias and credibility.

A source loses credibility on the sole basis of him considering himself to be personally insulted. Skeptics they call themselves...

Of course it does. We're critical of both sides. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't go around believing the Greek police or government are perfect and can do no wrong.

You, however, seem to buy anything so long as it comes from some edgy blog.

The credibility of my sources has been established by the method outlined above. That you continue to simply claim that I "buy anything so long as it comes from some edgy blog" shows that you have no actual argument.

Dude, get your stories straight. This is getting ridiculous.

Only a few posts ago you were lamenting how the buildings were walled up and that their owners wanted to just let them sit there uninhabited for some reason, and that they thus had no reason to throw the squatters out. Now you're going on about some evil scheme to develop and rent apartments. By rich people, no less. The absolute horror.

I agree that you are getting ridiculous. If you had bothered reading the thread you would've known that this operation of fancying up the neighbourhood to make it into a fancy tourist destination is supported by rich property developers and that these properties are not the same as the ones that have been squatted.

Now if you ever manage to come up with some actual argument then let me know, otherwise I see no point entertaining your ramblings.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

My mistake. Didn't consider that you might be referring to a post that had been moved to AAH.
Still a whataboutism evasion, of course. Whatever some other poster might have done, it doesn't makre you less biased or uncritical.

Edit: also, yes, I confess I haven't read all the links and posts you've spewed out. If you were a bit more consise and didn't just throw out heaps of links, more people would actually read them and you wouldn't have been misunderstood.

 

[caveman1917]

My mistake. Didn't consider that you might be referring to a post that had been moved to AAH.
Still a whataboutism evasion, of course. Whatever some other poster might have done, it doesn't makre you less biased or uncritical.

1. It is you who claimed that "people on this site" analyse sources in a particular way. Me debunking that claim of yours doesn't constitute "whataboutism."

2. You've yet to show any bias or uncritical thinking on my part.

Edit: also, yes, I confess I haven't read all the links and posts you've spewed out. If you were a bit more consise and didn't just throw out heaps of links, more people would actually read them and you wouldn't have been misunderstood.

It's not my fault that you fail to read what's been posted before making various claims that have already been addressed.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

One poster is "people on this site" now. Cool.

 

[Wolrab]

In the post quoted, I was referring to the obvious insults to me and other posters in the post caveman1917 made that were snipped as violations of rules 0 and 12.


His sources are suspect, in the least, but not insults.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Wow. So I was correct all along, and yet caveman calls me out on my post? Weird. Maybe he misunderstood your reply.

 

[Wolrab]

I suppose I could have been clearer.

 

[caveman1917]

In the post quoted, I was referring to the obvious insults to me and other posters in the post caveman1917 made that were snipped as violations of rules 0 and 12.

Yes, you claimed that I insulted you and therefor I am biased and not credible. That's a simplistic fallacy. Here let me show you:

"You idiot, the Earth is not flat."

I insulted you, therefor my claim that the Earth is not flat is biased and not credible?

His sources are suspect

And all we have on that is your assertion, but since you're making such simplistic errors in determining credibility (see paragraph above) I don't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should put much weight on that assertion of yours.

 

[Wolrab]

No. You declared your sources beyond reproach and then followed up with the insults.


Your credibility is in question because of the blatant one-sidedness of your sources.



Going directly to insults instead of firming up your explanations is telling to me.

 

[caveman1917]

No. You declared your sources beyond reproach and then followed up with the insults.

I didn't declare my sources beyond reproach, you declared them to be biased and not credible, which you not only failed to support but failed to account for the fact that their credibility had been put to the test multiple times already in the thread. You failing to account for any of that but merely asserting ad nauseam that my sources (or me personally) are biased and not credible should put your credibility in question.

Your credibility is in question because of the blatant one-sidedness of your sources.

It's amazing how you keep making up incorrect bases for determining the credibility of a source. Do you think the credibility of biology teachers is in question because of the one-sidedness of only teaching evolution and not also Intelligent Design?

Again, if you had read the thread you'd see that one of the first responses was by theprestige asking for the government side of the story, which I invited him to do if he so wished. GlennB then took it upon himself to do so with a couple of claims, which were swiftly debunked.

Going directly to insults instead of firming up your explanations is telling to me.

One man's insults are another man's observations.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's amazing how you keep making up incorrect bases for determining the credibility of a source.

We're not making anything up. These are the basics of critical thinking. Take a class and you'll see.

Do you think the credibility of biology teachers is in question because of the one-sidedness of only teaching evolution and not also Intelligent Design?

Not sure what you mean. The ToE is a proven, settled scientific fact, not a debated topic of current events.

And are you really claiming that the blogs and Facebook pages you've cited so far are objective and not biased?

Again, if you had read the thread you'd see that one of the first responses was by theprestige asking for the government side of the story, which I invited him to do if he so wished.

Generally speaking, "google it yourself" is a kind of handwaving that people seem to often use when they don't have good answers themselves.

 

[Wolrab]

When you claim (paraphrasing) "Anyone with any intelligence (an insult to my intelligence) at all can see my sources are right" is claiming your source is beyond reproach.

 

[caveman1917]

We're not making anything up. These are the basics of critical thinking. Take a class and you'll see.

No they're not, why would I want to take a class that teaches such nonsense? I've already given you the proper procedure for determining the credibility of one set of sources relative to another, namely finding out on which claims they contradict each other and seeing which of them is correct on said claims.

Not sure what you mean. The ToE is a proven, settled scientific fact, not a debated topic of current events.

Great, so you at least understand that reality can certainly be one-sided and the one-sidedness of a source is hence no basis for declaring it to lack credibility.

And are you really claiming that the blogs and Facebook pages you've cited so far are objective and not biased?

No need for me claiming anything, you could've deduced this yourself by checking the results of them being challenged on their accuracy multiple times in the thread. Indeed, that is how you should determine the credibility of sources, how the hell is this so hard to comprehend?

Generally speaking, "google it yourself" is a kind of handwaving that people seem to often use when they don't have good answers themselves.

It's not up to me to go looking for sources making easily-debunked claims. How about this: Either support this claim of my sources lacking credibility, by picking some of the assertions they made and showing them to be false, or continue to simply assert them to lack credibility ad nauseam which I'll just ignore from henceforth? GlennB gave up after that "really nice hotels" fiasco, but feel free to volunteer to be the next in line. I assume you've heard of the "put up or shut up" expression...

 

[caveman1917]

When you claim (paraphrasing) "Anyone with any intelligence (an insult to my intelligence) at all can see my sources are right" is claiming your source is beyond reproach.

No, it is pointing out that the accuracy of their claims has already been challenged multiple times in this thread and that anyone with any intelligence would have accounted for the results of those previous challenges. If I were claiming that my sources are beyond reproach I would deny to allow challenges. Yet, to the contrary, I've invited challenges - as I've done again in my previous post. What I have no interest in wasting my time with is people incessantly asserting that my sources lack credibility without ever backing it up and ignoring the proven track record of their accuracy in this very thread.

 

[sackett]

@Cave1719: I read the Bakunin quote in the footer to your posts. Question: Did it ever occur to you that he was talking about ideas, not plate glass and parked cars?

 

[caveman1917]

@Cave1719: I read the Bakunin quote in the footer to your posts. Question: Did it ever occur to you that he was talking about ideas, not plate glass and parked cars?

As to that quote, I'll refer you to a recent post of mine in another thread:

Of course not, don't be silly. Fundamentally your problem is that you are too attached to your ideas, you can not accept that your claim has been proven wrong. Your aversion to cognitive dissonance is ultimately a psychological problem and not a mathematical one, so I can't help you with that. Learn to enjoy disproving your own ideas, it is the only way to learn, if it can be destroyed by proof then it should be - also, see the last quote in my signature.

Question for you: Did it ever occur to you that the childish assumptions implicit in your questions (fe "plate glass and parked cars") say more about you than about me?