PA prank at Washington Township Walmart has customers riled

[linear]

I googled like you suggested and the first relevant article i found described the attackers as "overwhelmingly African American males, although prosecutors say a significant number were girls." so there goes your theory. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/89343497.html

Exception doesn't prove the rule.

Here are some more:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOPv6CcOaLr6YE9qmniAkwJTiUngD9ELH8AG0

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/89094992.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/89094852.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/88990037.html

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/South-Street-Flash-Mob-Closes-Businesses-Saturday-88832697.html

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/phillynow/Another-Flash-Mob-88811092.html

http://www.timesonline.com/bct_news/news_details/article/1373/2010/march/24/more-teens-guilty-in-roving-philly-mob-incidents.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7341962

Instances of the word black or african: 0

Please, please, PLEASE find the exception in these without realizing the irony.

It seems pointless, but i can do a google search and post the fist articles i found that all made it clear what race they were... but really we're just cherry-picking articles and going back and forth at that point. his point was that the media was ignoring it, and it isn't. some articles don't mention it, some do. it's not some black conspiracy.

and in a city that has more blacks than whites or latinos, that's not a big fucking shock and is a little redundant to say "the crowd is predominantly black, obviously, just like our city."

Right. So why not say it if it's not a big shock, but a bit redundant?

why point out information that's trivial?

Also, whites are predominant in the county. I guess we shouldn't mention their race anymore since it'd be redundant.  

that's actually exactly my point. in most articles, race ISN'T mentioned at all if it's a white person, because it's not relevant. in a predominantly black area, why does it matter that a mob was formed that was predominantly black?

oh, you're a teabagger. no wonder you don't know what you're talking about and won't accept facts when given examples.

What we're you saying?  

it was pretty straight forward.

I absolutely love when they get all righteous, holier-than-thou and arrogant then do the very behavior they are railing against. MONKEY FLING OWN POOP!

YOU were saying?

i do what you tell me to (google), find nothing but counter examples (all articles i read made it clear that they were black - such as the one i gave a link to), and you tell me i'm wrong. definitely sounds logical.

Of which you gave one example. Funny that.

again, we can go back and forth with links... but it's pointless as we're both able to find examples of the opposite

Oh and adding the pictures is moving the goalpost (although in the opposite of the usual usage.) Please do go on about logic when using logical fallacies.

so pointing out race in the article is only important if it's explicitly spelled out in the text. right. all pictures should be removed from every article because they're pointless.

this isn't a political message board, so i'm not going to even attempt to engage you with a response to the other dumb "observations" you make (since it's futile anyway with people who refuse to educate themselves or be open to facts in general), but i will say that you should probably stop watching FOX news.

Right. Go back to your liberal circlejerk blogs where you will be patted on the back and won't be challenged.

you teabaggers aren't a challenge either, but i appreciate the effort. i don't need the circlejerk blogs, as i can think for myself, but thanks for the advice. i hope you're still regurgitating glenn beck rants on your twitter account, jenn.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY SUCKS, TAXES OMG!

oh wait, you're better than that because you support ron paul 

[jx]

I probably fucked up the quoting. Deal.

It seems pointless, but i can do a google search and post the fist articles i found that all made it clear what race they were... but really we're just cherry-picking articles and going back and forth at that point. his point was that the media was ignoring it, and it isn't. some articles don't mention it, some do. it's not some black conspiracy.

Oh so THAT'S why you've only provided one link. Now I understand!  

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. (Strawman) And it is happening.

Also, cherry picking is projection.

that's actually exactly my point. in most articles, race ISN'T mentioned at all if it's a white person, because it's not relevant. in a predominantly black area, why does it matter that a mob was formed that was predominantly black?

Its relevant in every case.

oh, you're a teabagger. no wonder you don't know what you're talking about and won't accept facts when given examples.

What we're you saying?  
[/quote]

it was pretty straight forward.[/quote]

Yes, it is.  

I absolutely love when they get all righteous, holier-than-thou and arrogant then do the very behavior they are railing against. MONKEY FLING OWN POOP!

YOU were saying?[/quote]

More irony. *facepalm*

Oh and adding the pictures is moving the goalpost (although in the opposite of the usual usage.) Please do go on about logic when using logical fallacies.

so pointing out race in the article is only important if it's explicitly spelled out in the text. right. all pictures should be removed from every article because they're pointless.

No, because that wasn't the original discussion was about. You should have looked up moving the goalposts before replying. (Also, strawman.)

you teabaggers aren't a challenge either, but i appreciate the effort. i don't need the circlejerk blogs, as i can think for myself, but thanks for the advice. i hope you're still regurgitating glenn beck rants on your twitter account, jenn.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY SUCKS, TAXES OMG!

oh wait, you're better than that because you support ron paul  

Ad hominem and strawmen.  

[linear]

i see that community college debate class is working out for you. (OMG MORE FALLACIEZ)

also, if you're going to try and write-off everything as a logical fallacy as a way to avoid direct conversation (OMG WHAT IS THAT CALLED?), you might want to actually know how to properly identify the fallacy.

FOR EXAMPLE, let's use "moving the goalposts" as you oh-so-ironically told me to lookup after misusing it yourself. to be brief, i'm not demanding further info then what was initially requested by me (in fact i didn't request anything. i just provided a simple counter-example) nor am i increasing what type of "evidence" i'll accept as valid. i can't move the goalpost when i never even set the goalpost. i responded to a claim that articles weren't indicating race (if anything, that's the goalpost), and found examples that did. when you're saying visual representations of the mobs do not count as indicating race, it is actually YOU who has moved the goal post. "more irony" indeed!

as far as not posting articles, yes that IS why i was avoiding it. because again, it's just cherry-picking going back and forth at that point. but if you want to get into that stupid pissing contest...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20100322_Another_flash_mob_rocks_South_Street__In_the__tsunami___chants_of__Burn_the_city__.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125220494&ft=1&f=1003

blah blah blah.

and look, it's mentioned in the text, not just visually represented (less you want to move the goalposts again! but since one of them indicates that they self-identify as black, and didn't reiterate their race, you'll probably move that goal post too.)

and if race is always relevant, where's all of your righteous indignation at the millions of articles about white people published every day that don't bother pointing out a redundant fact? some do, some don't. you don't care because it's not relevant.

... unless of course they're not white. then WE MUST KNOW!

oh hey, i'm going to bed. and since i know this is going to be something we'll both be guilty of pushing forward pointlessly, i'll let you know upfront that it won't be until tomorrow that i'll continue to engage you against my better judgment in this shitfest.

[jx]

also, if you're going to try and write-off everything as a logical fallacy as a way to avoid direct conversation (OMG WHAT IS THAT CALLED?), you might want to actually know how to properly identify the fallacy.

Annoying when someone doesn't take the bait, run in circles getting all frustrated, isn't it?

FOR EXAMPLE, let's use "moving the goalposts" as you oh-so-ironically told me to lookup after misusing it yourself. to be brief, i'm not demanding further info then what was initially requested by me (in fact i didn't request anything. i just provided a simple counter-example) nor am i increasing what type of "evidence" i'll accept as valid. i can't move the goalpost when i never even set the goalpost. i responded to a claim that articles weren't indicating race (if anything, that's the goalpost), and found examples that did. when you're saying visual representations of the mobs do not count as indicating race, it is actually YOU who has moved the goal post. "more irony" indeed!

In the original post referring to moving the goal posts, I said:

"Oh and adding the pictures is moving the goalpost (although in the opposite of the usual usage.) "

Instead of making more information be required, you're requiring less.

The original grievance wasn't that there weren't pictures, but it wasn't mentioned in the article itself.

Who first mentioned pictures?

The community college reading courses worked out for me too, btw.

Also, I didn't start the discussion so I'm not responsible at all for it's original content

as far as not posting articles, yes that IS why i was avoiding it. because again, it's just cherry-picking going back and forth at that point. but if you want to get into that stupid pissing contest...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20100322_Another_flash_mob_rocks_South_Street__In_the__tsunami___chants_of__Burn_the_city__.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125220494&ft=1&f=1003

blah blah blah.

and look, it's mentioned in the text, not just visually represented (less you want to move the goalposts again! but since one of them indicates that they self-identify as black, and didn't reiterate their race, you'll probably move that goal post too.)

"Black boys" doesn't count. Also, it should be mentioned in all of them.

Also, references in moving the goalposts are projection.

and if race is always relevant, where's all of your righteous indignation at the millions of articles about white people published every day that don't bother pointing out a redundant fact? some do, some don't. you don't care because it's not relevant.

... unless of course they're not white. then WE MUST KNOW!

Pretty sure I already said it is always relevant.

It's funny that you assume it's because I'm racist and not because I think identity politics separates us just like racism does. More so, actually, since identity politics are socially acceptable.

This is why progress in America is slow. We have one side who actively fights progress and the other has us going in circles. It'd be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.

And righteous indignation is projection. I've been pretty calm throughout this whole exchange while you seem almost inconsolable.

[linear]

also, if you're going to try and write-off everything as a logical fallacy as a way to avoid direct conversation (OMG WHAT IS THAT CALLED?), you might want to actually know how to properly identify the fallacy.

Annoying when someone doesn't take the bait, run in circles getting all frustrated, isn't it?

i'm not sure what to make of this. if you're admitting you're just running in circles instead of "taking the bait" and actually discussing the issue, then i'm not sure what the point of this is. thankfully, you did at least go on after this to try to present some decent statements, so i'll respond to those.

In the original post referring to moving the goal posts, I said:

"Oh and adding the pictures is moving the goalpost (although in the opposite of the usual usage.) "

Instead of making more information be required, you're requiring less.

The original grievance wasn't that there weren't pictures, but it wasn't mentioned in the article itself.

Who first mentioned pictures?

The community college reading courses worked out for me too, btw.

the grievance from the the statement i responded to was specifically that "The media refuses to describe any of the attackers, but we know via cellphone videos that they are black." Which is not true, as I found articles that described in text or visually described the mob. Pictures offer a visual description (which in many cases is a more powerful description - if those cellphone videos count, then pictures do as well). so really what you want to do is argue semantics in order to move the goal posts. fine, i later offered additional articles that all pointed out race in other ways, in the text itself (one of which you also, as predicted, moved the goal post on in order to discount the point).

"Black boys" doesn't count. Also, it should be mentioned in all of them.

Also, references in moving the goalposts are projection.

label it as projection all you want, but really it was just a case of knowing my audience. when presented with a counter argument, i suspected and was correct in assuming you would move the goal post to invalidate it. 

so tell me, why doesn't an article pointing out that someone (or in this case, a group) self-identified as black count as a description of said person's/group's race? the article couldn't make it clearer. if you're looking for something along the lines of "the kids said they were balck. it should be noted that the kids were black,"  then you're just being obtuse. so about those reading classes?

Pretty sure I already said it is always relevant.

("it" being race for those following along)

yet you also made the claim that race is mentioned for white people in a predominantly white country and use that as an example of why it needs to be mentioned in non-predominantly white areas, ignoring the fact that it often is NOT mentioned for white people. so either you're not paying attention to those cases (which are just as easy to find) but take exception to other cases of it happening, or you're intentionally ignoring them to make a point which is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

It's funny that you assume it's because I'm racist and not because I think identity politics separates us just like racism does. More so, actually, since identity politics are socially acceptable.

i'm not assuming you're racist. i've known you longer than that and i know where you're coming from politically. however, i do think you're extremely naive if you think that identity-politics is what separates us as opposed to what draws the need for identity politics.

This is why progress in America is slow. We have one side who actively fights progress and the other has us going in circles. It'd be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.

i don't know if you're indicating here that i am now on "the side" running in circles or, or on the side fighting progress. i'll assume you've switched the roles from what you initially said in the post, and are now accusing me of running in circles because, you know, how dare i continue to respond to you. though responding to the side actively fighting with arguments may seem like running in circles, i'm not sure how else to move towards progress. ignore them and move on? that doesn't solve the fact that them actively fighting does indeed impede progress. i should clarify that i wouldn't put you in the category of actively fighting progress, i'm just using your own words.

And righteous indignation is projection. I've been pretty calm throughout this whole exchange while you seem almost inconsolable.

yes, i'm completely inconsolable because someone disagrees with me. the sky sure is falling in my world. or, you know, i'm just responding to posts on a message board.

(by the way, since you ended with it here -- but really you have been using the method throughout your posts -- i should mention that the "point out use of a logical fallacy so that i can then use the same fallacy and not be called out" strategy is pretty transparent. either you call me out on them so they're not use at all, or we let this be a shitfest where they're hurled back forth. don't play it off like there so terrible but then further the use of them in the discussion on your end).

[linear]

(to whoever moved this to the polictics forum; good call)

[Nod]

This thread was a lot better until it devolved into politics. Can't we just talk about how funny it was to get on the Wal-Mart PA system and troll the customers?

[linear]

This thread was a lot better until it devolved into politics. Can't we just talk about how funny it was to get on the Wal-Mart PA system and troll the customers?

i'm for it.

[jx]

also, if you're going to try and write-off everything as a logical fallacy as a way to avoid direct conversation (OMG WHAT IS THAT CALLED?), you might want to actually know how to properly identify the fallacy.

Annoying when someone doesn't take the bait, run in circles getting all frustrated, isn't it?

i'm not sure what to make of this. if you're admitting you're just running in circles instead of "taking the bait" and actually discussing the issue, then i'm not sure what the point of this is. thankfully, you did at least go on after this to try to present some decent statements, so i'll respond to those.

Actually I was mocking your feeble attempts to aggravate. But you knew that.

In the original post referring to moving the goal posts, I said:

"Oh and adding the pictures is moving the goalpost (although in the opposite of the usual usage.) "

Instead of making more information be required, you're requiring less.

The original grievance wasn't that there weren't pictures, but it wasn't mentioned in the article itself.

Who first mentioned pictures?

The community college reading courses worked out for me too, btw.

the grievance from the the statement i responded to was specifically that "The media refuses to describe any of the attackers, but we know via cellphone videos that they are black." Which is not true, as I found articles that described in text or visually described the mob. Pictures offer a visual description (which in many cases is a more powerful description - if those cellphone videos count, then pictures do as well). so really what you want to do is argue semantics in order to move the goal posts. fine, i later offered additional articles that all pointed out race in other ways, in the text itself (one of which you also, as predicted, moved the goal post on in order to discount the point).

"Black boys" doesn't count. Also, it should be mentioned in all of them.

Also, references in moving the goalposts are projection.

label it as projection all you want, but really it was just a case of knowing my audience. when presented with a counter argument, i suspected and was correct in assuming you would move the goal post to invalidate it.  

so tell me, why doesn't an article pointing out that someone (or in this case, a group) self-identified as black count as a description of said person's/group's race? the article couldn't make it clearer. if you're looking for something along the lines of "the kids said they were balck. it should be noted that the kids were black,"  then you're just being obtuse. so about those reading classes?[/quote]
[/quote]

Ok, linear. I'll give you that "gotcha" even though it was I who mentioned moving the goalposts and Black Boys is ambiguous. Good job. You /finally/ got one, even if I had to give it to you.

Also, you pointed out 2 or 3 articles (I don't feel like going back and counting) and seem to somehow think this means his point (unless you're taking his quite obvious hyperbole literally. obtuse, what?) is somehow invalidated.

Pretty sure I already said it is always relevant.

("it" being race for those following along)

yet you also made the claim that race is mentioned for white people in a predominantly white country and use that as an example of why it needs to be mentioned in non-predominantly white areas, ignoring the fact that it often is NOT mentioned for white people. so either you're not paying attention to those cases (which are just as easy to find) but take exception to other cases of it happening, or you're intentionally ignoring them to make a point which is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

[/quote]

Did I miss a thread about whites not being mentioned? If so, please provide a link.

It's funny that you assume it's because I'm racist and not because I think identity politics separates us just like racism does. More so, actually, since identity politics are socially acceptable.

i'm not assuming you're racist. i've known you longer than that and i know where you're coming from politically. however, i do think you're extremely naive if you think that identity-politics is what separates us as opposed to what draws the need for identity politics.

[/quote]

I think class distinctions are far more of a factor than race. Race is, more often than not, incidental. Identity politics and what causes the need for identity politics both separate. Same shit, different box.

I think we're both naive (projection?) and want the same exact thing by different idealistic means. We're actually on the same side but those nasty identity politics keep us (and by us, I mean you) from connecting in a constructive manner.

This is why progress in America is slow. We have one side who actively fights progress and the other has us going in circles. It'd be funny if it wasn't so frustrating.

i don't know if you're indicating here that i am now on "the side" running in circles or, or on the side fighting progress. i'll assume you've switched the roles from what you initially said in the post, and are now accusing me of running in circles because, you know, how dare i continue to respond to you. though responding to the side actively fighting with arguments may seem like running in circles, i'm not sure how else to move towards progress. ignore them and move on? that doesn't solve the fact that them actively fighting does indeed impede progress. i should clarify that i wouldn't put you in the category of actively fighting progress, i'm just using your own words.

Misinterpreted. My fault though as it was unclear wtf I was going on about. I mean liberals want to do the very thing they are against to fix the problem, albeit in the opposite way.

And righteous indignation is projection. I've been pretty calm throughout this whole exchange while you seem almost inconsolable.

yes, i'm completely inconsolable because someone disagrees with me. the sky sure is falling in my world. or, you know, i'm just responding to posts on a message board.

(by the way, since you ended with it here -- but really you have been using the method throughout your posts -- i should mention that the "point out use of a logical fallacy so that i can then use the same fallacy and not be called out" strategy is pretty transparent. either you call me out on them so they're not use at all, or we let this be a shitfest where they're hurled back forth. don't play it off like there so terrible but then further the use of them in the discussion on your end).
[/quote]

It must have been really annoying being shown over and over and over how your reasoning is wrong, huh? Also, more projection.

[linear]

Actually I was mocking your feeble attempts to aggravate. But you knew that.

having an opposing opinion than yours is not attempting to aggravate. sorry if you find different viewpoints aggravating, but that's on you.

Ok, linear. I'll give you that "gotcha" even though it was I who mentioned moving the goalposts and Black Boys is ambiguous. Good job. You /finally/ got one, even if I had to give it to you.

nice try, but you didn't "give me" anything. i simply pointed what moving the goalposts ACTUALLY means, by using your argument as an example. the only GOTCHA argument is calling me out on shit that you refuse to stop doing as well.

Also, you pointed out 2 or 3 articles (I don't feel like going back and counting) and seem to somehow think this means his point (unless you're taking his quite obvious hyperbole literally. obtuse, what?) is somehow invalidated.

yes, i only pointed out a few (four, omg!) as they were the first few that came up for me, and the exercise, as i mentioned numerous times before i posted them, is silly. his point was that it was being ignored by THE MEDIA!@##@ and it's simply not. like anything you read about that has multiple articles, some sources mention it and some don't. and really,  it's not a big deal either way.

Did I miss a thread about whites not being mentioned? If so, please provide a link.

actually you brought it up in this thread, but stated that it IS mentioned, when really it is just as often not mentioned. so to restate my point since you seemed to miss it, either you're not paying attention to those cases but take exception to other cases of it happening (not likely - as this would be a bias and i've already stated i know your argument is not stemming from racism), or you're intentionally ignoring them to make a point which is misleading at best, dishonest at worst (more likely).

it's not that you ignored some other thread about it, it's that you used it as a dishonest example.

I think class distinctions are far more of a factor than race. Race is, more often than not, incidental. Identity politics and what causes the need for identity politics both separate. Same shit, different box.

i agree that class distinctions and class privilege are huge. but to imply that those privileges are tied MOSTLY to class and not a myriad of other factors is silly.

I think we're both naive (projection?) and want the same exact thing by different idealistic means. We're actually on the same side but those nasty identity politics keep us (and by us, I mean you) from connecting in a constructive manner.

there you go again. when someone disagrees with you, it must be because THEY can't connect! no need to examine your own views.

Misinterpreted. My fault though as it was unclear wtf I was going on about. I mean liberals want to do the very thing they are against to fix the problem, albeit in the opposite way.

this is a comment often repeated by some libertarian people i talk to, but really i think it just shows a disinterest on the part of those people to actually examine what the "fix" people are suggesting is. it's like me writing your solutions off because "libertarians just want to brush it under the rug and ignore the history of class/race/corporate/etc relations." it's not what you're actually working for, even though it can be easily generalized like that.

It must have been really annoying being shown over and over and over how your reasoning is wrong, huh? Also, more projection.

nope, because you've failed at that. sure, my posts contain some juvenile tactics (which seemingly is only wrong if someone but you does it), but it's a fucking message board. the facts and opinions are still valid, even if i want to ad hominem someone along the way by calling them a shitbag (yes, i just used ad hominem as a verb).

what IS annoying is that you haven't made a single post in this discussion that doesn't use the same fallacies you're getting so high and mighty about and stretching to label. you act like you're so above it all but fail to see the irony in your inability to avoid them. if it's not okay for me to use them, then it's not okay for you to use them. you don't get special treatment.

i could reply with a drawn-out explanation of how you've been mislabeling "projection" (like you were for moving the goal posts), but it will just continue to derail this already tired argument that's splintered (and has a real likelihood of continuing to splinter as it is) to areas that are just going to further something that was barely worth discussing in the first place.

[jx]

Actually I was mocking your feeble attempts to aggravate. But you knew that.

having an opposing opinion than yours is not attempting to aggravate. sorry if you find different viewpoints aggravating, but that's on you.

Cutting out the context and replying in a way that has nothing to do with said context is pretty dishonest.

nice try, but you didn't "give me" anything. i simply pointed what moving the goalposts ACTUALLY means, by using your argument as an example. the only GOTCHA argument is calling me out on shit that you refuse to stop doing as well.

Tu quoque.

yes, i only pointed out a few (four, omg!) as they were the first few that came up for me, and the exercise, as i mentioned numerous times before i posted them, is silly. his point was that it was being ignored by THE MEDIA!@##@ and it's simply not. like anything you read about that has multiple articles, some sources mention it and some don't. and really,  it's not a big deal either way.

Hyperbole taken literally.  

actually you brought it up in this thread, but stated that it IS mentioned, when really it is just as often not mentioned. so to restate my point since you seemed to miss it, either you're not paying attention to those cases but take exception to other cases of it happening (not likely - as this would be a bias and i've already stated i know your argument is not stemming from racism), or you're intentionally ignoring them to make a point which is misleading at best, dishonest at worst (more likely).

it's not that you ignored some other thread about it, it's that you used it as a dishonest example.

Actually my obvious sarcasm showed how your logic (ppl in phila predominately black so why mention it) could be applied to all crime.

So, should I be outraged at both or neither? I'm confused.

I think class distinctions are far more of a factor than race. Race is, more often than not, incidental. Identity politics and what causes the need for identity politics both separate. Same shit, different box.

i agree that class distinctions and class privilege are huge. but to imply that those privileges are tied MOSTLY to class and not a myriad of other factors is silly.

They aren't mutually exclusive. It could be mostly class and a myriad of other factors.

I think we're both naive (projection?) and want the same exact thing by different idealistic means. We're actually on the same side but those nasty identity politics keep us (and by us, I mean you) from connecting in a constructive manner.

there you go again. when someone disagrees with you, it must be because THEY can't connect! no need to examine your own views.

Here within criticism, I extend a kind of olive branch saying how I think we're similar and pointing out we're really on the same team and instead of taking it, you dig in your heels some more.

So, yeah, by us I do mean you.

Your attempts to divert the discussion by making me get defensive are failing, btw.

Misinterpreted. My fault though as it was unclear wtf I was going on about. I mean liberals want to do the very thing they are against to fix the problem, albeit in the opposite way.

this is a comment often repeated by some libertarian people i talk to, but really i think it just shows a disinterest on the part of those people to actually examine what the "fix" people are suggesting is. it's like me writing your solutions off because "libertarians just want to brush it under the rug and ignore the history of class/race/corporate/etc relations." it's not what you're actually working for, even though it can be easily generalized like that.

Fair enough. Throw me some links and keywords to specific things you are referring to.

It must have been really annoying being shown over and over and over how your reasoning is wrong, huh? Also, more projection.

nope, because you've failed at that. sure, my posts contain some juvenile tactics (which seemingly is only wrong if someone but you does it), but it's a fucking message board. the facts and opinions are still valid, even if i want to ad hominem someone along the way by calling them a shitbag (yes, i just used ad hominem as a verb).

what IS annoying is that you haven't made a single post in this discussion that doesn't use the same fallacies you're getting so high and mighty about and stretching to label. you act like you're so above it all but fail to see the irony in your inability to avoid them. if it's not okay for me to use them, then it's not okay for you to use them. you don't get special treatment.

i could reply with a drawn-out explanation of how you've been mislabeling "projection" (like you were for moving the goal posts), but it will just continue to derail this already tired argument that's splintered (and has a real likelihood of continuing to splinter as it is) to areas that are just going to further something that was barely worth discussing in the first place.

You're right. I was using projection when I should have been using tu quoque. Ad yeah it does apply because you aren't using them against the arguments, you are using them attack me, not the arguments.

[linear]

Cutting out the context and replying in a way that has nothing to do with said context is pretty dishonest.

cutting out what i said didn't change the context. you think i was or am trying to be aggravating in my responses, when really i'm just discussing the issue with you. i don't know how that would be percieved as "trying to aggravate."

nice try, but you didn't "give me" anything. i simply pointed what moving the goalposts ACTUALLY means, by using your argument as an example. the only GOTCHA argument is calling me out on shit that you refuse to stop doing as well.

Tu quoque.

Sorry, that doesn't apply. it would apply if i was insisting you stop using them. which i'm not, i'm just saying don't be hypocritical about them. either we both use them and you stop being high and mighty, or go ahead and stop, but don't act as if you're opposed to them. i don't know why i have to keep spelling out this point. i'm not calling you out for using them, i'm calling out the hypocrisy.

yes, i only pointed out a few (four, omg!) as they were the first few that came up for me, and the exercise, as i mentioned numerous times before i posted them, is silly. his point was that it was being ignored by THE MEDIA!@##@ and it's simply not. like anything you read about that has multiple articles, some sources mention it and some don't. and really,  it's not a big deal either way.

Hyperbole taken literally.  

hyperbole taken literally would be if he said OH MY GOD THERE'S A MILLION ARTICLES THAT DON'T MENTION IT AND ONLY ONE THAT DOES and i countered by "well i found two." him saying the media is ignoring it and me finding out they aren't has nothing to do with hyperbole.

Actually my obvious sarcasm showed how your logic (ppl in phila predominately black so why mention it) could be applied to all crime.

So, should I be outraged at both or neither? I'm confused.

don't play dumb. it's one or the other. either it should be something that bothers you in all situations (if it's ignored for /any/ race), or it shouldn't bother you either way. picking and choosing what race it bothers you for is illogical (as is saying that it bothers you when it happens for both, but in a separate statement ignoring that it happens for whites too in order to make a misleading point).

They aren't mutually exclusive. It could be mostly class and a myriad of other factors.

it could be theoretically. but as it stands now, that isn't the case. but i will concede that this is a matter of opinion.

I think we're both naive (projection?) and want the same exact thing by different idealistic means. We're actually on the same side but those nasty identity politics keep us (and by us, I mean you) from connecting in a constructive manner.

there you go again. when someone disagrees with you, it must be because THEY can't connect! no need to examine your own views.

Reading this thread it really is a mystery why.


Your attempts to divert the discussion by making me get defensive are failing, btw.

again, me disagreeing with you is not trying to put you on the defensive. it's disagreeing with you. if anything, your "by us i mean you" is an attempt to put me on the defensive. but really neither of us are going to succeed putting the other on the defensive. we're adults, we can have a conversation.

Misinterpreted. My fault though as it was unclear wtf I was going on about. I mean liberals want to do the very thing they are against to fix the problem, albeit in the opposite way.

this is a comment often repeated by some libertarian people i talk to, but really i think it just shows a disinterest on the part of those people to actually examine what the "fix" people are suggesting is. it's like me writing your solutions off because "libertarians just want to brush it under the rug and ignore the history of class/race/corporate/etc relations." it's not what you're actually working for, even though it can be easily generalized like that.

Fair enough. Throw me some links and keywords to specific things you are referring to.

christ, if you really want to have a political argument about different topics all together i'll be happy to, but lets not drag it out in this thread. no one but you and i care. you know my email address and we can shoot the shit back and forth all you want. but lets try to stick to the main topic of this this argument without derailing it further.

and, in case you doubt my sincerity, i assure you that's not an attempt to deflect. i'll be happy to discuss other topics with you. it wouldn't be the first time we've (rather pointlessly) discussed our opposing political views. we're not going to change each others' minds apparently, but it appears we both are getting something out of it, i guess.

You're right. I was using projection when I should have been using tu quoque. Ad yeah it does apply because you aren't using them against the arguments, you are using them attack me, not the arguments.

although tu quoque makes more sense and i at least see what you're going for, it's still mislabeling it. at any rate, i was attacking YOU in the sense that i was attacking the hypocrisy of using the same methods you're rallying against. you know the point i'm trying to make there as i've repeated it ad nauseum. anyway, at this point it's going to become us just tu quoque'ing (more verbing!) each other back and forth. so we can move back to the actual argument and not go AROUND IN CIRCLES!@$ now. though somehow i bet we still end up in circles.

[jx]

Cutting out the context and replying in a way that has nothing to do with said context is pretty dishonest.

cutting out what i said didn't change the context. you think i was or am trying to be aggravating in my responses, when really i'm just discussing the issue with you. i don't know how that would be percieved as "trying to aggravate."

You can go back and read what exactly it is I mean. Naaaah.

nice try, but you didn't "give me" anything. i simply pointed what moving the goalposts ACTUALLY means, by using your argument as an example. the only GOTCHA argument is calling me out on shit that you refuse to stop doing as well.

Tu quoque.

Sorry, that doesn't apply. it would apply if i was insisting you stop using them. which i'm not, i'm just saying don't be hypocritical about them. either we both use them and you stop being high and mighty, or go ahead and stop, but don't act as if you're opposed to them. i don't know why i have to keep spelling out this point. i'm not calling you out for using them, i'm calling out the hypocrisy. [/quote]

Insisting I stop using them is not required. Hypocrisy in the arguments in which I'm using them or is the hypocrisy in me?  If hypocrisy in an argument, then no, it doesn't apply (the whole moving the goalpost thing, for example. Though I think we just disagreed as to what our standards were.). If you're just attacking me, then it does.

yes, i only pointed out a few (four, omg!) as they were the first few that came up for me, and the exercise, as i mentioned numerous times before i posted them, is silly. his point was that it was being ignored by THE MEDIA!@##@ and it's simply not. like anything you read about that has multiple articles, some sources mention it and some don't. and really,  it's not a big deal either way.

Hyperbole taken literally.  

hyperbole taken literally would be if he said OH MY GOD THERE'S A MILLION ARTICLES THAT DON'T MENTION IT AND ONLY ONE THAT DOES and i countered by "well i found two." him saying the media is ignoring it and me finding out they aren't has nothing to do with hyperbole.[/quote]

This is actually the closest to the heart of the matter, really. Did you really think he thought there were literally no articles were mentioning it? If not, it's hyperbole. It works both ways.

Actually my obvious sarcasm showed how your logic (ppl in phila predominately black so why mention it) could be applied to all crime.

So, should I be outraged at both or neither? I'm confused.

don't play dumb. it's one or the other. either it should be something that bothers you in all situations (if it's ignored for /any/ race), or it shouldn't bother you either way. picking and choosing what race it bothers you for is illogical (as is saying that it bothers you when it happens for both, but in a separate statement ignoring that it happens for whites too in order to make a misleading point).[/quote]

Oh so it's ok to be outraged at both. Whew!
 

I think we're both naive (projection?) and want the same exact thing by different idealistic means. We're actually on the same side but those nasty identity politics keep us (and by us, I mean you) from connecting in a constructive manner.

there you go again. when someone disagrees with you, it must be because THEY can't connect! no need to examine your own views.

Reading this thread it really is a mystery why.


Your attempts to divert the discussion by making me get defensive are failing, btw.

again, me disagreeing with you is not trying to put you on the defensive. it's disagreeing with you. if anything, your "by us i mean you" is an attempt to put me on the defensive. but really neither of us are going to succeed putting the other on the defensive. we're adults, we can have a conversation.[/quote]

You statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.

Amidst the criticism, there was a kind of olive branch saying "Hey, I think we're similar in these ways and both on the same side." My attempt an a connection, rebuffed.

If it's any consolation, I don't think it is just you, I think it's most everybody, unfortunately. It's profoundly sad how divided we all are.

Misinterpreted. My fault though as it was unclear wtf I was going on about. I mean liberals want to do the very thing they are against to fix the problem, albeit in the opposite way.

this is a comment often repeated by some libertarian people i talk to, but really i think it just shows a disinterest on the part of those people to actually examine what the "fix" people are suggesting is. it's like me writing your solutions off because "libertarians just want to brush it under the rug and ignore the history of class/race/corporate/etc relations." it's not what you're actually working for, even though it can be easily generalized like that.

Fair enough. Throw me some links and keywords to specific things you are referring to.

christ, if you really want to have a political argument about different topics all together i'll be happy to, but lets not drag it out in this thread. no one but you and i care. you know my email address and we can shoot the shit back and forth all you want. but lets try to stick to the main topic of this this argument without derailing it further.

and, in case you doubt my sincerity, i assure you that's not an attempt to deflect. i'll be happy to discuss other topics with you. it wouldn't be the first time we've (rather pointlessly) discussed our opposing political views. we're not going to change each others' minds apparently, but it appears we both are getting something out of it, i guess.[/quote]

k.

The rest was addressed elsewhere in this post.

That was fun but can we be done now?

[linear]

You can go back and read what exactly it is I mean. Naaaah.

i did re-read it, the context didn't change.

Insisting I stop using them is not required. Hypocrisy in the arguments in which I'm using them or is the hypocrisy in me?  If hypocrisy in an argument, then no, it doesn't apply (the whole moving the goalpost thing, for example. Though I think we just disagreed as to what our standards were.). If you're just attacking me, then it does.

uh, i'm attacking th hypocrisy itself, and i don't think hypocrisy is innate. so that's not really attacking you, just your choice in presenting the argument.

This is actually the closest to the heart of the matter, really. Did you really think he thought there were literally no articles were mentioning it? If not, it's hyperbole. It works both ways.

if i had found a singular article, sure, he's right. but every single relevant article i found (that wasn't merely a blog entry about it, but actual news sources) mentioned it. i'm not denying that there's other articles that didn't mention it, but no one is covering it up or ignoring it. it's just basic journalism. some sources will cover it, others won't find it relevant. it's not identity politics, it's just article writing.

Oh so it's ok to be outraged at both. Whew!

as long as you're consistent. but your points were showing an inconsistency. glad we're moving past it though.
 

You statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.

so why use them except to attempt to put me on the defensive?

Amidst the criticism, there was a kind of olive branch saying "Hey, I think we're similar in these ways and both on the same side." My attempt an a connection, rebuffed.

except i offered the same olive branch in what you quoted. (the whole spiel about how we're both adults, etc.

If it's any consolation, I don't think it is just you, I think it's most everybody, unfortunately. It's profoundly sad how divided we all are.

i'll agree, even though i think your target is set on the wrong person.

k.

The rest was addressed elsewhere in this post.

That was fun but can we be done now?

i'd like to think so, but part(/most) of me really doubts it.

[PHISH-PHREAK]

exactly!...