The Tolerant Left at it again

[CJD]

(10-12-2019, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Although I disagree with the benefit of the doubt you'd give Trump supporters, at least,  we can agree that the link Matt posted was not a fair report of the events. 

You seem to view "fair" as a true or false kind of thing. If an otherwise true statement has one word that's false, the entire statement is false (classic trap during high school exams).

I see it as more of a spectrum.

The article posted was not perfectly fair. But it was a factual reporting with one word that was not perfectly accurate. I consider this mostly fair, or "acceptably fair" with the exception of the one word. You consider the entire article invalid because it had one word out of line.

It's interesting the different ways people view things though.

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2019, 12:17 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You seem to view "fair" as a true or false kind of thing. If an otherwise true statement has one word that's false, the entire statement is false (classic trap during high school exams).

I see it as more of a spectrum.

The article posted was not perfectly fair. But it was a factual reporting with one word that was not perfectly accurate. I consider this mostly fair, or "acceptably fair" with the exception of the one word. You consider the entire article invalid because it had one word out of line.

It's interesting the different ways people view things though.

Yep "no violence" to describe last night's events and calling a group that has nothing to do with military action militia-like is "just one word". 

Did you consider the link I posted to be mostly fair? Maybe more fair than Matt's link with no videos. 

But I absolutely agree with your last sentence. 

[CJD]

(10-12-2019, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep "no violence" to describe last night's events ... is "just one word". 

well, the "no" is the one word, but your assessment was mostly fair.

Quote:Did you consider the link I posted to be mostly fair? Maybe more fair than Matt's link with no videos. 

The videos were undeniably useful in assessing what occurred.
The captions to the videos were far more stilted than anything in Matt's article though.

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2019, 12:40 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: well, the "no" is the one word, but your assessment was mostly fair.


The videos were undeniably useful in assessing what occurred.
The captions to the videos were far more stilted than anything in Matt's article though.

"John Wilkes Booth didn't assasinate Lincoln, but he was an actor". 

Hey that statement is mostly fair outside of just one word. 

Enjoy your weekend

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2019, 12:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep "no violence" to describe last night's events and calling a group that has nothing to do with military action militia-like is "just one word". 

Did you consider the link I posted to be mostly fair? Maybe more fair than Matt's link with no videos. 

But I absolutely agree with your last sentence. 

I admit that the article I posted was inaccurate in its use of the statement that there was no violence. However, your insistence that the Oath Keepers should not be referred to as "militia-like" or just an outright militia is flat out naivete. Also, the local article I posted, which when it comes to events within a city is always the best source, made it seem like the reports may have been overblown from some of the other sources around the internet.

[BakertheBeast]

If I had a choice I'd rather have urine thrown on me than getting run over by a car. Not quite the same thing but thats just me.

[GMDino]

(10-12-2019, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I admit that the article I posted was inaccurate in its use of the statement that there was no violence. However, your insistence that the Oath Keepers should not be referred to as "militia-like" or just an outright militia is flat out naivete. Also, the local article I posted, which when it comes to events within a city is always the best source, made it seem like the reports may have been overblown from some of the other sources around the internet.

Please remember Matt that when making assertions YOU are held to 100% accuracy.  And one word or slight alteration results in YOU being completely wrong and days wasted going over the nuanced differences.

However we cannot react to what Trump says or what his minions do because we don't know what is in their hearts.

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2019, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well being as you didn't answer the question posed; I guess I can respond. Folks can look at post #35, my original (outside of the one that got magically deleted) in this back and forth and see my original and constant suggestion has been the actions and not the outcome. Yet, we asked about intent you moved it from the difference being a death to the difference being number. 

The event (I did notice how you changed that to events, maybe you meant events earlier when you said event) is exactly the same; unfortunately for the young lady in Charolletsville the outcome was different. 

I don’t disagree that YOU mentioned intent, but you put yourself in the middle of a conversation between myself and Sunset in which we were discussing the events. You steering the conversation in your own direction doesn’t change what Sunset and I were discussing.

[CJD]

(10-12-2019, 12:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: "John Wilkes Booth didn't assasinate Lincoln, but he was an actor". 

Hey that statement is mostly fair outside of just one word. 

Enjoy your weekend

You as well 

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2019, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I admit that the article I posted was inaccurate in its use of the statement that there was no violence. However, your insistence that the Oath Keepers should not be referred to as "militia-like" or just an outright militia is flat out naivete. Also, the local article I posted, which when it comes to events within a city is always the best source, made it seem like the reports may have been overblown from some of the other sources around the internet.

I agree the local article was much less bias and inaccurate than the first article you linked that had "just one word" wrong. The local article refers to Trump reporters often getting attacked, the crowd turning their attentions from Trump to he very LEOs there to safeguard them, and doesn't call the Oath Takers militia. All in all it seemed like an accurate report.

[CJD]

(10-14-2019, 10:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree the local article was much less bias and inaccurate than the first article you linked that had "just one word" wrong. The local article refers to Trump reporters often getting attacked, the crowd turning their attentions from Trump to he very LEOs there to safeguard them, and doesn't call the Oath Takers militia. All in all it seemed like an accurate report.

The two stories share several portions that were copied and pasted from one to the other (not sure which direction the copying went).

Including the paragraph calling the Oath Keepers Militia-style.

Word for word, in fact.

But the no physical skirmishes section is not present. So I agree that it is an accurate report. A fair report as well.