10787 pts · August 5, 2011
(51/51)> Also, this last long post and the things you claim not to know leads to HAVE either assume you are either liar or grossly uneducated on the topic, could you pick one?The topic is the ethics of celebrating someone getting murdered for their beliefs. And if my education is inferior to yours, then you really should be doing better.
(50/51)There. I answered your question. Your turn. I’ll repeat mine, in the same tone and cadence as yours. “Actually answer it instead of turning it around like you tried to. He was murdered for his politics and that’s a proven fact. Just explain why you’re morally justified in celebrating murdering someone for their beliefs.
(49/51)> Just explain why you are morally justified in browbeating people happy that a man you acknowledged as vile is dead.Oh that question. No problem. Here’s your answer: I never did that.
(48/51)> instead of turning it around like you tried tohe didn't just say things and that's a proven factNo it’s not.
(47/51)But I’m telling you right now, the result is going to be the same every. Single. Time. Without. Exception. I am going to correct you on your disingenuous nonsense.>Actually answer itYou’ve asked several questions, so I’m not sure which “it” you’re referring to here, but it doesn’t really matter, because I have answered every question you’ve asked.
(46/51)>How are you being moral by browbeating people who are happy that a person who did hurt people is dead,Never did that. I criticized people for celebrating a man being murdered for his beliefs. You can reframe that as many time as you want. You can strip the context repeatedly. You can keep saying “death” instead of “murder” despite the fact it WAS a murder, and you can keep ignoring the motivation…
(45/51) So, actually engage with the question I'm asking.You have asked many questions. I have engaged every one of them.
(44/51)>You got upset about the name Comeuppance,I got upset about celebrating a man getting murdered over his beliefs.> I keep pointingnhe and his organization hurt people through their advocacy and poltical connection and you keep trying to say he was ONLY murdered for speech.Turning point is a political organization. You’re still talking about his politics.
(43/51) Actually, people do celebrate things they think are wrong, infact it's kinda the reason we have holidays, including Dionysus festivals, Halloween and Christmas.None of those things revolve around celebrating things we find morally objectionable.> Fat Tuesday isn't about being moral.It’s also not about doing things you find morally objectionable.> I had multiple example of you not being the bigger man, you just pretend I never wrote them.No, you certainly did not.
(42/51)> at no point did I defend murdering people you disagree with politically, butYes. You. Did. That is exactly what this incident was, and you have consistently defended celebrating it the entire time. You don’t celebrate things you think are wrong.
(41/51)> the point I brought up to is the morality of browbeating people for celebrating the death of people,Except that I never did that. I criticized people for celebrating the MURDER of people over their beliefs. You just chose to ignore the context because it makes it easier to justify if you leave that part out.
(40/51)Also, you keep asking us it OK to murder others for their politics,Yes. Because that is the point. That has always been the point. That was the point of my original comment, to which every other comment in this thread derives from. That it is wrong to celebrate someone getting murdered for their politics. And THAT is what you attacked me for.
(39/51)> So here's you chance, quote all the things you find tk be illogical and I'll answer to themI’ve been doing that all along. Why do you think these responses are so long? Because I take the time to respond to everything you have to say that I take issue with, aside from a few things that I would categorize as “but that’s neither here nor there and we don’t need to get further derailed.” And your last response to this was to accuse me of “trying to win by endurance.”
(38/51)> in particular because it's near impossible to prove some is disingenuousObjectively? Perhaps. But again, this isn’t a court of law. You’re as transparent and obvious as you need to be to make it entirely reasonable to call you out for it.
(37/51)>I've yet to say anything provably illogical or disingenuous,Yes you have. I’ve established that quite thoroughly more times than I can count without effort.
(36/51)> First, I bring he actually had lead to harm of others and you keep trying to frame it as he didn't do anything aside from speeches and debates.The two are not mutually exclusive. Speeches and debates are about the exchange of ideas and philosophies. That always hat the potential for harm. But the great danger always has been and always will be using violence to SUPPRESS speech, debates, and the exchange of ideas and philosophies.
(35/51)> If you want to know why I'm justified in celebrating his death,I don’t. I want to know why you’re justified in celebrating someone getting murdered over their beliefs.
(34/51)>and then when asked is it right to judge a victim for abuse for celebrating the death of an abuser and you said it depends on the victim.No, I certainly did not. I said it’s highly debatable if it’s ever OK to celebrate murder, but that it would certainly be a lot more understandable if the killer was motivated by the victim killing/raping/etc. the killer or the killer’s loved ones, versus the killer simply did not like the victim’s politics.
(33/51) Third, you actually imply it, you criticized people for celebrating Kirk's deathI criticized people for celebrating someone getting murdered for his politics.
(32/51)> How do you have the ability to accuse people of yellow journalism practices but not stochastic terrorism?Fairly easily. The former tends to be fairly transparent. The latter is a controversial idea that can be applied far too easily to far too many, as an excuse for far too much, without any way of objectively establishing causality.
(31/51)> This whole obfuscation to "Well, he didn't directly do something." Is a known tactic.A known tactic of WHAT? There is a very IMPORTANT difference between “this is something that this person actually did” and “this is something someone might have inspired.”
(30/51)And while it’s certainly something that happens, objectively classifying it is virtually impossible, and trying grants license to anyone to point at anyone else and say “you contributed to this person’s mindset, you’re a stochastic terrorist!” Again, you’re really reaching for a justification for murdering people over politics. This is really important to you, huh?
(29/51)> Second, read stochastic terrorism.Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is still widely up for debate, and an INCREDIBLY dangerous idea to be brandishing about as an excuse for punishing people, let alone taking their lives. It boils down to “you’re creating a culture from which people are likely to do violent things.”
(28/51)> If you actually wanted to say murdered for poltical beliefs, George Lincoln Rockwell.Rockwell wasn't murdered for his politics. He was murdered by a man who shared them. A fellow neo-Nazi who many believe was in love with Rockwell, and seemed to have some form of mental illness. He killed Rockwell because Rockwell rejected him. You’re trying REAL hard to rationalize killing people who say things you don’t like. It’s deeply disturbing how doggedly you chased this line of thinking.
(27/51)> There's not false equivalence, you just want to avoid the point.It IS a false equivalence, because we’re having a discussion about MURDER over POLITICS, and you’re brining in a SUICIDE by a man hunted for WAR CRIMES and MASS ATROCITIES. The two are not the same. At all. It is shameful to pretend otherwise.
(26/51)>I gave an example of where it was fine and that pissed you off.And I *immediately* pointed out why it was irrelevant BECAUSE IT WASN’T A MURDER, AND MURDER OVER POLITICS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF DISCUSSION. And you doubled down on it. Repeatedly.
(25/51)>it was death first, you changed it to murder.It was NEVER just death. Ever. YOU kept insisting on ignoring the context of the death in question to make it easier to argue. I made it very clear what the issue is.
(24/51)> First, if you say it's never alright to celebrate the death of man,No, I certainly do not. Never have. I say that it’s never alright to celebrate a person getting murdered for his politics.
(23/51) And KILLING people who speak about it? All you do is create martyrs. You GALVANIZE the believers. And what’s worse, you LEGITIMIZE their grievances. You give them something REAL to point at, and say “see that? That’s how they deal with the truth! (as they see it) They silence it!” And people like you dancing around like this is some kind of victory? For the love of God, you’re making everything worse, it horrifies me that you can’t see it.
(22/51)Good ideas need to be promoted and fought for. BAD ideas need to be confronted. They need to be dragged out into the light. Their flaws and inaccuracies laid bare. We do NOT grow and evolve by HIDING these things. When we try to suppress ideas, they don’t go away. What happens if far worse. Instead, they spread unchallenged. They get spoken of in unchecked echo chambers, where they are amplified and turned into a movement that is so entrenched that there’s no fighting it anymore.
(51/51)> Also, this last long post and the things you claim not to know leads to HAVE either assume you are either liar or grossly uneducated on the topic, could you pick one?
The topic is the ethics of celebrating someone getting murdered for their beliefs. And if my education is inferior to yours, then you really should be doing better.
(50/51)There. I answered your question. Your turn. I’ll repeat mine, in the same tone and cadence as yours. “Actually answer it instead of turning it around like you tried to. He was murdered for his politics and that’s a proven fact. Just explain why you’re morally justified in celebrating murdering someone for their beliefs.
(49/51)> Just explain why you are morally justified in browbeating people happy that a man you acknowledged as vile is dead.
Oh that question. No problem. Here’s your answer: I never did that.
(48/51)> instead of turning it around like you tried tohe didn't just say things and that's a proven fact
No it’s not.
(47/51)But I’m telling you right now, the result is going to be the same every. Single. Time. Without. Exception. I am going to correct you on your disingenuous nonsense.
>Actually answer it
You’ve asked several questions, so I’m not sure which “it” you’re referring to here, but it doesn’t really matter, because I have answered every question you’ve asked.
(46/51)>How are you being moral by browbeating people who are happy that a person who did hurt people is dead,
Never did that. I criticized people for celebrating a man being murdered for his beliefs. You can reframe that as many time as you want. You can strip the context repeatedly. You can keep saying “death” instead of “murder” despite the fact it WAS a murder, and you can keep ignoring the motivation…
(45/51) So, actually engage with the question I'm asking.
You have asked many questions. I have engaged every one of them.
(44/51)>You got upset about the name Comeuppance,
I got upset about celebrating a man getting murdered over his beliefs.
> I keep pointingnhe and his organization hurt people through their advocacy and poltical connection and you keep trying to say he was ONLY murdered for speech.
Turning point is a political organization. You’re still talking about his politics.
(43/51) Actually, people do celebrate things they think are wrong, infact it's kinda the reason we have holidays, including Dionysus festivals, Halloween and Christmas.
None of those things revolve around celebrating things we find morally objectionable.
> Fat Tuesday isn't about being moral.
It’s also not about doing things you find morally objectionable.
> I had multiple example of you not being the bigger man, you just pretend I never wrote them.
No, you certainly did not.
(42/51)> at no point did I defend murdering people you disagree with politically, but
Yes. You. Did. That is exactly what this incident was, and you have consistently defended celebrating it the entire time. You don’t celebrate things you think are wrong.
(41/51)> the point I brought up to is the morality of browbeating people for celebrating the death of people,
Except that I never did that. I criticized people for celebrating the MURDER of people over their beliefs. You just chose to ignore the context because it makes it easier to justify if you leave that part out.
(40/51)Also, you keep asking us it OK to murder others for their politics,
Yes. Because that is the point. That has always been the point. That was the point of my original comment, to which every other comment in this thread derives from. That it is wrong to celebrate someone getting murdered for their politics. And THAT is what you attacked me for.
(39/51)> So here's you chance, quote all the things you find tk be illogical and I'll answer to them
I’ve been doing that all along. Why do you think these responses are so long? Because I take the time to respond to everything you have to say that I take issue with, aside from a few things that I would categorize as “but that’s neither here nor there and we don’t need to get further derailed.” And your last response to this was to accuse me of “trying to win by endurance.”
(38/51)> in particular because it's near impossible to prove some is disingenuous
Objectively? Perhaps. But again, this isn’t a court of law. You’re as transparent and obvious as you need to be to make it entirely reasonable to call you out for it.
(37/51)>I've yet to say anything provably illogical or disingenuous,
Yes you have. I’ve established that quite thoroughly more times than I can count without effort.
(36/51)> First, I bring he actually had lead to harm of others and you keep trying to frame it as he didn't do anything aside from speeches and debates.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Speeches and debates are about the exchange of ideas and philosophies. That always hat the potential for harm. But the great danger always has been and always will be using violence to SUPPRESS speech, debates, and the exchange of ideas and philosophies.
(35/51)> If you want to know why I'm justified in celebrating his death,
I don’t. I want to know why you’re justified in celebrating someone getting murdered over their beliefs.
(34/51)>and then when asked is it right to judge a victim for abuse for celebrating the death of an abuser and you said it depends on the victim.
No, I certainly did not. I said it’s highly debatable if it’s ever OK to celebrate murder, but that it would certainly be a lot more understandable if the killer was motivated by the victim killing/raping/etc. the killer or the killer’s loved ones, versus the killer simply did not like the victim’s politics.
(33/51) Third, you actually imply it, you criticized people for celebrating Kirk's death
I criticized people for celebrating someone getting murdered for his politics.
(32/51)> How do you have the ability to accuse people of yellow journalism practices but not stochastic terrorism?
Fairly easily. The former tends to be fairly transparent. The latter is a controversial idea that can be applied far too easily to far too many, as an excuse for far too much, without any way of objectively establishing causality.
(31/51)> This whole obfuscation to "Well, he didn't directly do something." Is a known tactic.
A known tactic of WHAT? There is a very IMPORTANT difference between “this is something that this person actually did” and “this is something someone might have inspired.”
(30/51)And while it’s certainly something that happens, objectively classifying it is virtually impossible, and trying grants license to anyone to point at anyone else and say “you contributed to this person’s mindset, you’re a stochastic terrorist!”
Again, you’re really reaching for a justification for murdering people over politics. This is really important to you, huh?
(29/51)> Second, read stochastic terrorism.
Stochastic terrorism is a concept that is still widely up for debate, and an INCREDIBLY dangerous idea to be brandishing about as an excuse for punishing people, let alone taking their lives. It boils down to “you’re creating a culture from which people are likely to do violent things.”
(28/51)> If you actually wanted to say murdered for poltical beliefs, George Lincoln Rockwell.
Rockwell wasn't murdered for his politics. He was murdered by a man who shared them. A fellow neo-Nazi who many believe was in love with Rockwell, and seemed to have some form of mental illness. He killed Rockwell because Rockwell rejected him.
You’re trying REAL hard to rationalize killing people who say things you don’t like. It’s deeply disturbing how doggedly you chased this line of thinking.
(27/51)> There's not false equivalence, you just want to avoid the point.
It IS a false equivalence, because we’re having a discussion about MURDER over POLITICS, and you’re brining in a SUICIDE by a man hunted for WAR CRIMES and MASS ATROCITIES. The two are not the same. At all. It is shameful to pretend otherwise.
(26/51)>I gave an example of where it was fine and that pissed you off.
And I *immediately* pointed out why it was irrelevant BECAUSE IT WASN’T A MURDER, AND MURDER OVER POLITICS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF DISCUSSION. And you doubled down on it. Repeatedly.
(25/51)>it was death first, you changed it to murder.
It was NEVER just death. Ever. YOU kept insisting on ignoring the context of the death in question to make it easier to argue. I made it very clear what the issue is.
(24/51)> First, if you say it's never alright to celebrate the death of man,
No, I certainly do not. Never have. I say that it’s never alright to celebrate a person getting murdered for his politics.
(23/51) And KILLING people who speak about it? All you do is create martyrs. You GALVANIZE the believers. And what’s worse, you LEGITIMIZE their grievances. You give them something REAL to point at, and say “see that? That’s how they deal with the truth! (as they see it) They silence it!” And people like you dancing around like this is some kind of victory? For the love of God, you’re making everything worse, it horrifies me that you can’t see it.
(22/51)Good ideas need to be promoted and fought for. BAD ideas need to be confronted. They need to be dragged out into the light. Their flaws and inaccuracies laid bare. We do NOT grow and evolve by HIDING these things. When we try to suppress ideas, they don’t go away. What happens if far worse. Instead, they spread unchallenged. They get spoken of in unchecked echo chambers, where they are amplified and turned into a movement that is so entrenched that there’s no fighting it anymore.