Yes, We Cannibal!

[fossten]

You do. The "no, you!" retort is priceless.

The Left was blanketed as a whole by biter-boy's actions. I then did the same to the Right with Mr. Punchy(equally foolish move), same thing, son. You didn't have a problem with the former, as you did you the later, Capt'N Objective.

Your trollishness is trumped only by your condescension.

 

[lincolnx2]

It is simply reasonable. If someone is approaching you with the intent to harm you are you going to wait for him to make the first move? If you do, you would be putting yourself at unnecessary risk because his first move may very well incapacitate and/or kill you.

To go with a hypothetical...

You have a gun in your hand and there is another gun on a table halfway between you and a Islamic terrorist intent on using it to kill you. Are you going to wait for him to get the gun and take the first shot, or are you going to shoot him first?

I know they are different situations, but I am showing the logic behind the idea of preemptive action in the name of self-defense. If you don't accept that notion then I would have to ask why. If you do accept that notion then the question simply becomes one of when preemptive self-defense is justified, not if it is justified.

So, do you feel preemptive self-defense is justified in some circumstances?

Its funny you used an Islamic terrorist as an example, I have a prejudice towards Middle Eastern Muslims (I know its wrong). I understand where you are coming from, I just feel the guy put him self in a sticky situation hitting the guy. In the army we have something called an escalation of force, first we shout, then we shove, then show, then we shoot. No hitting involved!

 

[lincolnx2]

This is an amusing question considering that the ultimate action of the 'never touched him' guy was to BITE OFF HIS FINGER.

I was asking a simple question, no need for useless responses!

 

[shagdrum]

Your trollishness is trumped only by your condescension.

I think you nailed it right there.

You do. The "no, you!" retort is priceless.

It is interesting to note that you don't seem able to counter that "retort". Mock it all you like, but unless you can substantively counter it, it stands. All the condescension you want to throw at it will not disprove or invalidate it. Condescension is only a valid means of debate for children and people with a childlike intellectual maturity level. Unfortunately rude, dismissive condescension as a means of debate seems to be a pattern for you here.

These type of baseless accusations are also something that you have a pattern of doing on this forum. This is simply another example.

The Left was blanketed as a whole by biter-boy's actions. I then did the same to the Right with Mr. Punchy(equally foolish move), same thing, son. You didn't have a problem with the former, as you did you the later, Capt'N Objective.

So...you were trying to make a joke?

You have a habit of snarky, condescending and dismissive smears on this forum that only serve to insult and detract from the debate (your latest attempts to bait me by calling me 'son' being a prime example, as is your baseless and irrelevant accusation of a lack of 'objectivity' on my part). So, when you make a comment like you made in that light, only one conclusion seems reasonable. If you were sincerely attempting to make a joke, then I am sorry for jumping to conclusions. But I have a hard time believing that one. Maybe you should try using a smiley.

Taken as a serious claim, what you say differs from fossten's point in a very important and substantive way; one is demonstratably a reflection of the truth and one distorts the truth and only serves to smear and condescend. The left, specifically on this issue, has been notoriously intolerant and hostile (and even violent at times) to opposing views on this. The "biter-boy's" action are simply the latest example. What you are claiming from the right here has no such pattern of behavior to back it up. All it does is smear conservatives and dishonestly marginalize them.

So, the way I see it, either you were simply emotionally reacting and attempting to smear conservatives in general (and likely hoping to upset us conservatives on this forum in the process), or you were being facetious. Which was it?

 

[shagdrum]

Its funny you used an Islamic terrorist as an example, I have a prejudice towards Middle Eastern Muslims (I know its wrong). I understand where you are coming from, I just feel the guy put him self in a sticky situation hitting the guy. In the army we have something called an escalation of force, first we shout, then we shove, then show, then we shoot. No hitting involved!

For good or ill, us civilians don't have any type of formal "escalation of force". So those decisions less...consistent from person to person.

The question, in this instance, seems to be weather or not Mr. Rice was justified in feeling threatened to a degree that would warrant physical action. I doubt we will ever fully know that.

 

[lincolnx2]

For good or ill, us civilians don't have any type of formal "escalation of force". So those decisions less...consistent from person to person.

The question, in this instance, seems to be weather or not Mr. Rice was justified in feeling threatened to a degree that would warrant physical action. I doubt we will ever fully know that.

Do we ever fully know anything?

 

[TheDude]

Your trollishness is trumped only by your condescension.

 

[TheDude]

It is interesting to note that you don't seem able to counter that "retort". Mock it all you like, but unless you can substantively counter it, it stands. All the condescension you want to throw at it will not disprove or invalidate it. Condescension is only a valid means of debate for children and people with a childlike intellectual maturity level. Unfortunately rude, dismissive condescension as a means of debate seems to be a pattern for you here.

These type of baseless accusations are also something that you have a pattern of doing on this forum. This is simply another example.



So...you were trying to make a joke?

You have a habit of snarky, condescending and dismissive smears on this forum that only serve to insult and detract from the debate (your latest attempts to bait me by calling me 'son' being a prime example, as is your baseless and irrelevant accusation of a lack of 'objectivity' on my part). So, when you make a comment like you made in that light, only one conclusion seems reasonable. If you were sincerely attempting to make a joke, then I am sorry for jumping to conclusions. But I have a hard time believing that one. Maybe you should try using a smiley.

Taken as a serious claim, what you say differs from fossten's point in a very important and substantive way; one is demonstratably a reflection of the truth and one distorts the truth and only serves to smear and condescend. The left, specifically on this issue, has been notoriously intolerant and hostile (and even violent at times) to opposing views on this. The "biter-boy's" action are simply the latest example. What you are claiming from the right here has no such pattern of behavior to back it up. All it does is smear conservatives and dishonestly marginalize them.

So, the way I see it, either you were simply emotionally reacting and attempting to smear conservatives in general (and likely hoping to upset us conservatives on this forum in the process), or you were being facetious. Which was it?

What's to counter? You're making claims that can't be proven. As far as we know, that biter insulted the puncher, the puncher claims he "felt threatened", so he threw the first punch; he was bitten for it. Can you prove the biter did something truly threatening that warranted an assault? Or did he just sling insults.

Spare the psycho-babble, I honestly don't think anyone is impressed.

When someone who associates themselves with "the Left" does some poor action, it surely blankets the Liberal and Democratic side. Truly, an objective point of view.

Did you just do a False Dichotomy, never, not you.

 

[shagdrum]

What's to counter?

What's to counter? My claim that there are countless examples throughout this forum of you showing a lack of objectivity; though I may have called it a lack of intellectual honesty or intellectual integrity at the time. But I have consistently pointed out when you demonstrated that quality in a specific, disprovable manner countless times on this forum and you as well as everyone else who has been following the politics section of this forum for a while knows it. You have never argued weather or not what I said was accurate. The most you could muster was to try and mock me. Like you are doing here.

Yet, when you accuse me of lacking some sort of objectivity, you are not able to present that critique in a specific and disprovable manner. In other words, you are simply throwing out a groundless accusation; you are lashing out like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum.

This is rather typical of your arguments too; long on anger/outrage and short on substance.

You're making claims that can't be proven.

And what claim would that be?

Can you prove the biter did something truly threatening that warranted an assault? Or did he just sling insults.

I never claimed he did or didn't do anything that would warrant assault. How about you stop moving the goalposts and mischaracterizing my arguments and discuss things like an adult.

When someone who associates themselves with "the Left" does some poor action, it surely blankets the Liberal and Democratic side. Truly, an objective point of view.

Knocking down those straw men must be real hard.

Did you just do a False Dichotomy, never, not you.

You have yet to cite anything that could be said to be a "false dilemma" created by me. Are you simply throwing out unfounded accusations? Again?

Maybe you should think about what you are going to type instead of simply typing out your angry, petulant little rants.

 

[TheDude]

Again, there's nothing to counter there but more of your typical hot air and finger pointing. I'd rather not.

My opening post to you showed your lack. Ignore it, or course.

Hahahaha, my post are never angry. This is the internet, dude. You're just a screen name, posturing and typing.

Oh right, you're just bringing in that 'attacking first if threatened is warranted', just because. You're obviously not trying to attribute this to Mr. Puncher. Let us discuss the price of rice next.

Na.

Are you serious? You just made a classic false dilemma, you said I'm 'either smearing conservatives in general or being facetious', when it was neither. What was that rant again about "intellectual honest"?

For the record, I was using an absurd statement to make light of an absurd statement, nothing more; it was obvious. Do keep up with your crying, it's what you do when someone pops your little eBubble.

 

[shagdrum]

Again, there's nothing to counter there but more of your typical hot air and finger pointing. I'd rather not.

So the FACT of your demonstrated behavior as well as my calling you on it and drawing logical conclusions from the pattern of behavior you establish is "hot air and finger pointing"?

Maybe instead of trying to mock what I was doing and attack the style with which I did it (calling me on "finger pointing") you should actually confront the substance of what I said. You always seem to avoid that.

My opening post to you showed your lack. Ignore it, or course.

???

Oh right, you're just bringing in that 'attacking first if threatened is warranted', just because. You're obviously not trying to attribute this to Mr. Puncher. Let us discuss the price of rice next.

Are you incapable of actually following the conversation and seeing why I was bringing that point up?

It is clear why I was bringing it up and how far I was running with that point. What you are doing is intentionally distorting my actions by attributing a motive that doesn't fit with my actions at all.

Are you serious? You just made a classic false dilemma, you said I'm 'either smearing conservatives in general or being facetious', when it was neither. What was that rant again about "intellectual honest"?

For the record, I was using an absurd statement to make light of an absurd statement, nothing more; it was obvious. Do keep up with your crying, it's what you do when someone pops your little eBubble.

So, I was making a "false dilemma" of 'either smearing conservatives in general or being facetious' but, for the record, you were being facetious?!

Here is the definition of facetious:

1. given to or marked by mature intelligent humor<the essay is a facetious commentary on the absurdity of war as a solution for international disputes>— see witty
2. making light of something usually regarded as serious or sacred<a facetious and tasteless remark about people in famine-stricken countries being spared the problem of overeating>— see flippant

So you were being facetious or, more accurately, you were being flippant (or as you put it, "make light"), which is inherently rude and condescending.

So...where is the false dilemma?

 

[TheDude]

You have a tendency to say "fact", when the evidence doesn't support you. You might want to look into this behavior of yours, as it's rather odd.

Love how you rant about me 'distorting what you say', yet here you are dictating to me on what I meant, for shame, sir, does the hypocrisy ever end with you? "Making light", as in illuminating the other absurd statement, bringing it to light, making it aware, making it known etc. etc. etc., not making a joke, having a laugh or fooling around, Mr. Facts.

BTW, I think your dictionary might be broken, Merriam-Webster has facetious as:

* Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
* Pronunciation: \fə-ˈsē-shəs\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
* Date: 1599

1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish <just being facetious>
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
synonyms see witty

— fa·ce·tious·ly adverb

— fa·ce·tious·ness noun

No "making light" in there, I also looked at 'dictionary.com', "yourtdictionary.com', and 'thefreedictionary.com'. How making dictionaries did you have to scan through before you found one that suited your needs?

 

[shagdrum]

You have a tendency to say "fact", when the evidence doesn't support you.

funny how you have never been able to show that.

If the "evidence doesn't support me" then that would mean that there is evidence from which a counter to my claim could be made. But I thought there was nothing to counter.

Love how you rant about me 'distorting what you say', yet here you are dictating to me on what I meant, for shame, sir, does the hypocrisy ever end with you?

There is a difference; what you are claiming is not supported by my actions, however, what I am claiming is supported by your actions and by your habits on this forum.

No "making light" in there, I also looked at 'dictionary.com', "yourtdictionary.com', and 'thefreedictionary.com'. How making dictionaries did you have to scan through before you found one that suited your needs?

Actually, I used the same website as you; the Merriam-Webster site. The difference was that I used the thesaurus. I simply typed this entry ["making light" facetious] into yahoo and the first result was the Merriam-Webster link I gave.

I was pretty sure that facetious and "making light" meant the same thing, I simply wanted to confirm it before asserting it here. If you want to confirm that, the thesaurus is the best place to go. A dictionary entry is worthless as you cannot get a definition of "making light" to compare to the definition of facetious.

 

[TheDude]

No, what I said. What you're doing is trying to mix and match the arguments now, there's probably a logical fallacy for that, I'm sure you know.

You're still posteuring and trying dictate what I said/meant? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

 

[shagdrum]

No, what I said.

That's mature. Not to mention reasonable.

You're still posteuring and trying dictate what I said/meant?

Can you say, "projecting"?

I am only making logical inferences based on your actions here and your habitual behavior in this forum.

 

[TheDude]

Funny, I was repeating what you where saying, I merely simplified it down to four words; doing away with the nonsense bits.

In other words, you're still trying to dictate to me on what I said/meant and attacking that(another logical fallacy there, I think), despite blatantly telling you what I meant several post above.

Have fun.

 

[shagdrum]

Funny, I was repeating what you where saying, I merely simplified it down to four words; doing away with the nonsense bits.

distorting what I said is not "repeating what I said" or "simplifying it down to four words". But feel free to keep trying to rationalize your petulance and dishonesty.

In other words, you're still trying to dictate to me on what I said/meant and attacking that(another logical fallacy there, I think), despite blatantly telling you what I meant several post above.

So, I should simply take you at your word when it doesn't logically line up with your actions here and your behavior generally on this forum (which includes habitual snarkiness, condescension and dishonesty)?