Domestic Terrorism

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-28-2017, 06:46 PM)Dill Wrote: He liked the page then, and is "friends with Falarca." That doesn't seem conclusive evidence of membership.

Had he liked a KKK or neonazi facebook group, I would not have assumed he was a member of either.  Even if he was friends with David Duke.  If I said was a KKK member for merely liking, I would just be creating my own facts.

You may have exposed a bias on my part, though. I would not view a friend of Falarca quite the same way as I would view a friend of David Duke.  For me, anti-racism and racism do not reduce easily to the same level.  BAMN is not just an equally evil mirror image of the KKK.

When your motivation for engaging in acts of violence against others is that you don't like their opinion you are absolutely as evil as the KKK.  They are not anti-racism, they are anti their political views and brand any political views they don't agree with as racist.  This should sound familiar to you.  You are equally wrong about another thing, I didn't expose any bias on your part just now, we've all been well away of your bias in this regard.  You've been exhibiting it for months now.

Quote:I think everyone agrees the police were told not to arrest for property crimes.  But it doesn't look like rioters had "free rein" to attack people. At least 11 were arrested. 

When someone is being assaulted directly in front of police and they do nothing about it that is the very definition of being given free reign.

Quote:But to keep on track here, are you arguing that this is a failure of local law enforcement on the level of, say, a refusal to prosecute civil rights violations in 1960 Mississippi, so a federal law against domestic terrorism is necessary?

Wait, are we arguing degree now?  I wasn't aware that the severity or scope of the hindrance to prosecution was the topic at hand.


 

Quote:Good, then let's see what the definition of domestic terrorism actually is before we presume it can be simply applied to "riotous actions," even because of political beliefs.

This was addressed superbly in the seventh post in this thread.  Check it out.

[Vlad]

(09-28-2017, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: And he had aligned with white supremacists.

Superficially at worst.


His motivations had zero to do with white supremacy and everything to do with being anti government/ US military.

He sounded more like a white liberal than a white supremacist.

In fact he says the same shit thats been said on these boards.

In a 1,200-word essay[105] dated March 1998, from the federal maximum-security prison at Florence, Colorado, McVeigh claimed that the terrorist bombing was "morally equivalent" to U.S. military actions against Iraq and other foreign countries. The handwritten essay, submitted to and published by the alternative national news magazine Media Bypass, was distributed worldwide by the Associated Press on May 29, 1998. This was written in the midst of the 1998 Iraq disarmament crisis and a few months before Operation Desert Fox.

Quote:The very words written by Timothy McVeigh the liberal

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") — mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, it is invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen those pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones — Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks or months to die).
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

The essay, which marked the first time that McVeigh publicly discussed the Oklahoma City bombing, continued:

Quote:Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet, when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about it.
When considering morality and "mens rea" [criminal intent], in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? ...
I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.
Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.
These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City ...

McVeigh included photocopies of a famous Vietnam War-era picture showing terrified children fleeing napalm bombs, and of nuclear devastation in Japan. He said in a preface that the essay was intended to "provoke thought — and was not written with malevolent intent."

On April 26, 2001, McVeigh wrote a letter to Fox News, I Explain Herein Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which explicitly laid out his reasons for the attack.[106] McVeigh read Unintended Consequences and said that if it had come out a few years earlier, he would have given serious consideration to using sniper attacks in a war of attrition against the government instead of bombing a federal building.[107]

Can you agree Dino?.... that he takes the same positions as you Dill and others, right?

[GMDino]

(09-28-2017, 07:54 PM)Vlad Wrote: Superficially at worst.


His motivations had zero to do with white supremacy and everything to do with being anti government/ US military.

He sounded more like a white liberal than a white supremacist.

In fact he says the same shit thats been said on these boards.

In a 1,200-word essay[105] dated March 1998, from the federal maximum-security prison at Florence, Colorado, McVeigh claimed that the terrorist bombing was "morally equivalent" to U.S. military actions against Iraq and other foreign countries. The handwritten essay, submitted to and published by the alternative national news magazine Media Bypass, was distributed worldwide by the Associated Press on May 29, 1998. This was written in the midst of the 1998 Iraq disarmament crisis and a few months before Operation Desert Fox.

The essay, which marked the first time that McVeigh publicly discussed the Oklahoma City bombing, continued:

McVeigh included photocopies of a famous Vietnam War-era picture showing terrified children fleeing napalm bombs, and of nuclear devastation in Japan. He said in a preface that the essay was intended to "provoke thought — and was not written with malevolent intent."

On April 26, 2001, McVeigh wrote a letter to Fox News, I Explain Herein Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which explicitly laid out his reasons for the attack.[106] McVeigh read Unintended Consequences and said that if it had come out a few years earlier, he would have given serious consideration to using sniper attacks in a war of attrition against the government instead of bombing a federal building.[107]

Can you agree Dino?....  that he takes the same positions as you Dill and others,  right?

No doubt much of his motivation was his part of the militia movement.  He loved him some guns show and and the Turner Diaries.

He also thought he was in a movie and compared a lot of what he did to Star Wars.

Nonetheless he was not a "liberal".  

Hell, if he was a registered democrat and said "I'm a liberal" he wouldn't have been a liberal based on his other actions and words.

But dividing the country into two easy to hate parties seems to be the latest spin action around here so have at it.

[Dill]

(09-28-2017, 07:54 PM)Vlad Wrote: On April 26, 2001, McVeigh wrote a letter to Fox News, I Explain Herein Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which explicitly laid out his reasons for the attack.[106] McVeigh read Unintended Consequences and said that if it had come out a few years earlier, he would have given serious consideration to using sniper attacks in a war of attrition against the government instead of bombing a federal building.[107]

Can you agree Dino?....  that he takes the same positions as you Dill and others,  right?

Well I can't speak for Dino, but I am not much for either bombing or sniper attacks.

[Dill]

(09-28-2017, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When your motivation for engaging in acts of violence against others is that you don't like their opinion you are absolutely as evil as the KKK.  They are not anti-racism, they are anti their political views and brand any political views they don't agree with as racist.  This should sound familiar to you.  You are equally wrong about another thing, I didn't expose any bias on your part just now, we've all been well away of your bias in this regard.  You've been exhibiting it for months now.

So I have been exhibiting an anti-fascist bias for months now.  And you have not.

I don't think an anti-abortion protester who throws blood on a doctor is as evil as the KKK, even though he might be engaging in an act of violence because he doesn't like the doctor's "opinion." 

I recognize that, as of late, rightists have taken to characterizing opposition to right wing ideas and behavior as a mere difference of opinion.  E.g., people call Trump a misogynist because he has a different opinion, not because he treats women badly.
Part of the Trump effect?

(09-28-2017, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When someone is being assaulted directly in front of police and they do nothing about it that is the very definition of being given free reign.

Wait are you arguing degree now?  I wasn't aware that the severity or scope of the hindrance to prosecution was the topic at hand.

This was addressed superbly in the seventh post in this thread.  Check it out.

Police hitting people with batons and arresting them are not "doing nothing."  As with your claim about the Mayor's membership, you are stretching primary data to support claims they otherwise would not.

In the post you first responded to, I asked what the advantage of or ground for creating a federal domestic terror law would be. Was it because local gov. could or would not prosecute cases of domestic terrorism?  Severity and scope and hindrance to prosecution has always been the topic I was addressing, insofar as these might justify a federal law or not.

And check out post number 9 in this thread for a superb response to 8.

[Dill]

(09-28-2017, 07:54 PM)Vlad Wrote: Superficially at worst.

His motivations had zero to do with white supremacy and everything to do with being anti government/ US military.

He sounded more like a white liberal than a white supremacist.

In fact he says the same shit thats been said on these boards.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City ...

Can you agree Dino?....  that he takes the same positions as you Dill and others,  right?

Nothing "superficially racist" about imagining yourself in the world of The Turner Diaries.

You might be missing something here, Vlad. Liberals don't criticize the unnecessary bombing of civilians in Iraq and then bomb federal buildings/day cares in the US--cuz "it's the same."

Here is my favorite part of his confession/rationalization for killing all those children.

Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet, when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about it.

LOL so the government put a day care in the Murrah building as a "shield."  And he was doing nothing different from what the US did when it bombed a country we were at war with.

There is nothing "liberal" about McVeigh's authoritarian world view, his determination to defend the Constitution from "enemies," whomever he determined these to be. Like an ISIS soldier swearing to destroy perceived Qu'ranic enemies, it was the only way he could hold together his fragmenting psyche.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-29-2017, 07:05 PM)Dill Wrote: So I have been exhibiting an anti-fascist bias for months now.  And you have not.

Oh my, nice twist Twisty McTwisterson!    

Quote:I don't think an anti-abortion protester who throws blood on a doctor is as evil as the KKK, even though he might be engaging in an act of violence because he doesn't like the doctor's "opinion." 

I agree.  The dude who crushes another person's skull with a bike lock is though.

Quote:I recognize that, as of late, rightists have taken to characterizing opposition to right wing ideas and behavior as a mere difference of opinion.  E.g., people call Trump a misogynist because he has a different opinion, not because he treats women badly.
Part of the Trump effect?

While I appreciate your hamfisted attempt at deflection I'll stick to the topic at hand.

Quote:Police hitting people with batons and arresting them are not "doing nothing."  As with your claim about the Mayor's membership, you are stretching primary data to support claims they otherwise would not.

It's not a claim, it's a fact.  I suppose I could have told a story about a muslim kid returning my wallet, that would likely hold more weight with you.

Quote:In the post you first responded to, I asked what the advantage of or  ground for creating a federal domestic terror law would be. Was it because local gov. could or would not prosecute cases of domestic terrorism?  Severity and scope and hindrance to prosecution has always been the topic I was addressing, insofar as these might justify a federal law or not.

I'm not arguing for a federal law, as should have been obvious by my post supporting the superb #8 post in this thread.

Quote:And check out post number 9 in this thread for a superb response to 8.

Haha, you really just labeled your own post "superb"?  First off, that's sad to the point that I almost feel bad for you.  Second, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your opinion, but thanks for offering it.

[Dill]

(09-30-2017, 01:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh my, nice twist Twisty McTwisterson!    

I agree.  The dude who crushes another person's skull with a bike lock is though.

While I appreciate your hamfisted attempt at deflection I'll stick to the topic at hand.

It's not a claim, it's a fact.  I suppose I could have told a story about a muslim kid returning my wallet, that would likely hold more weight with you.

I'm not arguing for a federal law, as should have been obvious by my post supporting the superb #8 post in this thread.

Haha, you really just labeled your own post "superb"?  First off, that's sad to the point that I almost feel bad for you.  Second, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your opinion, but thanks for offering it.

Making a logical implication explicit is not a "twist" to anyone who understands the concept of logical implication. You cannot say (or imply) a bias against fascism is bad without implying either no bias against fascism or bias in favor of it is good. No "twisting" there at all. These implications are part of the logical structure of the original claim--i.e., logically necessary.

When I claim "deflection," I explain what is deflected and how. I don't JUST assert it.  You did equate ANTIFA to the KKK by claiming they attacked people who merely had a different opinion.  That was a support to YOUR argument. Questioning YOUR premise is not deflection.

You've still not offered any effective support to your claim the Mayor belongs to BAMN.  But you keep claiming it. In place of support, you reference my story about Muslims returning wallets.  A second time you have done that in place of substantive argument.  And all that after accusing me of deflection.  And you've still not conceded that cops hitting people with batons and arresting them is not cops "doing nothing."

You chose to feel "sad" that I employed a play on your own words, and then chose to share that feeling with us, rather than explain what specifically you find superb in Leonard's argument. Why spend time emoting rather than supporting any of your own claims?
Is it possible that you mistake sharing your feelings for an argument or a rebuttal of any point I have made here?

Can you respond to any of the points I made in this and previous posts by supporting your claims with evidence, including claims I "deflect" or "twist" some point you make? And keep all that focused on the original question I raised about the OP? One-line quips, vague sweeping references to others' arguments, and descriptions of your feelings will not do the job.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2017, 01:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Making a logical implication explicit is not a "twist" to anyone who understands the concept of logical implication. You cannot say (or imply) a bias against fascism is bad without implying either no bias against fascism or bias in favor of it is good. No "twisting" there at all. These implications are part of the logical structure of the original claim--i.e., logically necessary.

Although I always enjoy your richly undeserved air of intellectual condescension, allow me to point out that you stated you didn't view being friends with a violent political agitator the same way you viewed being friends with David Duke.  The bias you exhibit is not against fascists, it's in favor of people who see, and use, violence as a political tool.  As an acceptable response to speech or political views they find disagreeable.  The bias you exhibit, is therefore a tolerance of violence as long as you find the target acceptably unacceptable.  This is why I hold you and GMDino in utter contempt.  While, in your own mind, claiming the moral high ground you expose yourself as morally bankrupt and intellectual dishonest.

Quote:When I claim "deflection," I explain what is deflected and how. I don't JUST assert it.  You did equate ANTIFA to the KKK by claiming they attacked people who merely had a different opinion.  That was a support to YOUR argument. Questioning YOUR premise is not deflection.

Again incorrect.  I equate people who view violence as an acceptable tool to be used against political opposition to be equally abhorrent.  Whether that violence is predicated on the color of a person's skin or the views they hold is meaningless to me.  In essence, when your skull is cracked open you are no less injured or aggrieved if you were targeted for your political beliefs then you would be if you were target for your ethnicity.

Quote:You've still not offered any effective support to your claim the Mayor belongs to BAMN.  But you keep claiming it. In place of support, you reference my story about Muslims returning wallets.  A second time you have done that in place of substantive argument.  And all that after accusing me of deflection.  And you've still not conceded that cops hitting people with batons and arresting them is not cops "doing nothing."

Again, incorrect.  I have not supplied enough proof to satisfy you.  The thing is I could care less about satisfying you because you have an agenda and your agenda trumps evidence.  You are intellectually dishonest.  You are asked if being friends with David Duke would be viewed as innocently.  Instead of owning the similarities you scramble to argue David Duke is somehow worse, while missing the point that being friends with either is grounds for censure for a public servant.  You want to cherry pick one instance of police finally intervening while ignoring the multitude of times they did not.  This is why "debating" you is a pointless exercise but, as I've said, I don't do it to justify or convince you of anything.  I do it to expose how utterly devoid of logic and reason your beliefs and arguments are.

Quote:You chose to feel "sad" that I employed a play on your own words, and then chose to share that feeling with us, rather than explain what specifically you find superb in Leonard's argument. Why spend time emoting rather than supporting any of your own claims?
Is it possible that you mistake sharing your feelings for an argument or a rebuttal of any point I have made here?

Dude, you dubbed your own post "superb".  That's the textbook definition of pathetic.

Quote:Can you respond to any of the points I made in this and previous posts by supporting your claims with evidence, including claims I "deflect" or "twist" some point you make? And keep all that focused on the original question I raised about the OP? One-line quips, vague sweeping references to others' arguments, and descriptions of your feelings will not do the job.  

Nope, no one on this board can respond in a matter that will meet your lofty scholarly standards.  Just remember, surveys you post are good, surveys other people post are bad.  Your sources are the work of serious scholars, the sources of others are meaningless drivel.  I do appreciate your posts though, they drive more people away from your school of thought than a thousand well worded responses.
[/quote]

[Dill]

(09-30-2017, 01:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Making a logical implication explicit is not a "twist" to anyone who understands the concept of logical implication. You cannot say (or imply) a bias against fascism is bad without implying either no bias against fascism or bias in favor of it is good. No "twisting" there at all. These implications are part of the logical structure of the original claim--i.e., logically necessary.


Although I always enjoy your richly undeserved air of intellectual condescension, allow me to point out that you stated you didn't view being friends with a violent political agitator the same way you viewed being friends with David Duke.  The bias you exhibit is not against fascists, it's in favor of people who see, and use, violence as a political tool.  As an acceptable response to speech or political views they find disagreeable.  The bias you exhibit, is therefore a tolerance of violence as long as you find the target acceptably unacceptable.  This is why I hold you and GMDino in utter contempt.  While, in your own mind, claiming the moral high ground you expose yourself as morally bankrupt and intellectual dishonest.

You threw out a quip calling my analysis of logical implication a "twist," as if all I do is quip too, which implies you do not understand logical implication or could not see it here. In response you got a clear, simple explanation of how logical implication works in this case. No chatter about your intellectual dishonesty, my contempt for you, and how debating you is "pointless"-but-I-do-it-for-others-who-presumably-cannot-manage-without-my-help.  I give no stage directions as to how people should imagine me or you. I let my argument make the argument.  (You seem to think that drives people away though?)

If you are given to wasting half a post in personal insults and explicit descriptions of how I make you feel and your position of superiority, then no one should be surprised if you "feel" condescended to when basic logic trumps your statements in clear, unemotional language. Yes, you look and feel bad then, but it's because you are caught in a dynamic you yourself created, in which any effective response will make you feel badly, nor matter how restrained, and in that case no one should suppose that anyone but you is responsible for your feelings.

Back to the argument--A claim that anti-fascists are not as bad as fascists, not their ethical/moral equal, does not, prima facie, endorse tolerance of "violence as a political tool."  To make that leap, you need a statement from me to the effect that "violence against fascists should be tolerated because anti-fascists are better people" or some such. But you have no such statement, and lacking that, you just made the inference yourself, imputed it to me, and then marveled at my intellectual dishonesty.

Further, if I state the claim thus: "BAMN is not just an equally evil mirror image of the KKK," then I have said that the KKK (and by implication fascists) are evil.  This is a "bias" against them, certainly.  You acknowledge this, perhaps unawares, when you claim I tolerate violence against views which are "acceptably unacceptable."

Affirming an ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists does not require that a fascist who breaks a window in a riot be punished differently than an anti-fascist who breaks a window.  However, claiming that there is no ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists because legal punishments should be applied equally reduces ethics to mere legality, where fascism and anti-fascism are indeed on equal footing.

And finally, I have noted that liking a Facebook page does not establish the Mayor is a member of BAMN. Continuing to maintain he is a member is, as I said, just stretching primary data to support your claim.  You could indeed meet my "lofty scholarly standards" in this case were you to provide actual evidence of membership, e.g. a report that he holds elected office in the organization.  In any case, you ought not to use my reliance on scholarly standards as an excuse to avoid supporting claims. Otherwise you leave the impression that it is pointless to argue with me precisely because you actually have to argue.  If you just throw around unsupported claims and insults, you won't end up feeling good about yourself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2017, 05:16 PM)Dill Wrote: You threw out a quip calling my analysis of logical implication a "twist," as if all I do is quip too, which implies you do not understand logical implication or could not see it here. In response you got a clear, simple explanation of how logical implication works in this case. No chatter about your intellectual dishonesty, my contempt for you, and how debating you is "pointless"-but-I-do-it-for-others-who-presumably-cannot-manage-without-my-help.  I give no stage directions as to how people should imagine me or you. I let my argument make the argument.  (You seem to think that drives people away though?)

I don't care how you respond, I care about the content.  Again, more insinuation of intellectual superiority, as boring as it is tiresome.

Quote:If you are given to wasting half a post in personal insults and explicit descriptions of how I make you feel and your position of superiority, then no one should be surprised if you "feel" condescended to when basic logic trumps your statements in clear, unemotional language. Yes, you look and feel bad then, but it's because you are caught in a dynamic you yourself created, in which any effective response will make you feel badly, nor matter how restrained, and in that case no one should suppose that anyone but you is responsible for your feelings.

All I hear from you and your ilk is "personal insults".  I challenge your intellectual honesty, I hold your duplicity in contempt.  I also challenge your assertions in so doing.  In reducing these posts to "personal insults" all you are attempting to do is invalidate a claim without addressing it.  You're transparent, be aware of this and stop wasting our time.

Quote:Back to the argument--A claim that anti-fascists are not as bad as fascists, not their ethical/moral equal, does not, prima facie, endorse tolerance of "violence as a political tool."  To make that leap, you need a statement from me to the effect that "violence against fascists should be tolerated because anti-fascists are better people" or some such. But you have no such statement, and lacking that, you just made the inference yourself, imputed it to me, and then marveled at my intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry no, there is no such thing as "anti-fascists".  Both they and fascists are merely fascists.  The target of your fascism, or the end of the spectrum it originates from, does not mitigate the ultimate end game.  That being violent subjugation of viewpoints you find unacceptable.  You, and any who defend this concept, are no less fascist than the brown shirted SA member of the NKVD commissar.

Quote:Further, if I state the claim thus: "BAMN is not just an equally evil mirror image of the KKK," then I have said that the KKK (and by implication fascists) are evil.  This is a "bias" against them, certainly.  You acknowledge this, perhaps unawares, when you claim I tolerate violence against views which are "acceptably unacceptable."

Being aware of one evil while turning a willingly blind eye to another is not grounds for congratulations.

Quote:Affirming an ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists does not require that a fascist who breaks a window in a riot be punished differently than an anti-fascist who breaks a window.  However, claiming that there is no ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists because legal punishments should be applied equally reduces ethics to mere legality, where fascism and anti-fascism are indeed on equal footing.

Except, as I illustrated above, there is not ethical distinction.  The only distinction lies in the political views the group seeks to eliminate through violent action.


And finally, I have noted that liking a Facebook page does not establish the Mayor is a member of BAMN.[/quote]

You say this, but, as I've already pointed out, liking the KKK or ISIS facebook page, or that of any other extremist group, would certainly be held as proof of membership, or at the very least sympathetic feelings, towards said extremist group.

Quote:Continuing to maintain he is a member is, as I said, just stretching primary data to support your claim.

 
No more than claiming the guy who follows ISIS on Facebook is a member/sympathizer. 

Quote:You could indeed meet my "lofty scholarly standards" in this case were you to provide actual evidence of membership, e.g. a report that he holds elected office in the organization.

 
Please, miss me with the bullshit.  I expect better than this even from you.

Quote:In any case, you ought not to use my reliance on scholarly standards as an excuse to avoid supporting claims.

Except you don't.  You have your own personal view of what is "scholarly" or acceptable.  Oddly enough the only scholars seem to be people who agree with you.

Quote:Otherwise you leave the impression that it is pointless to argue with me precisely because you actually have to argue.  If you just throw around unsupported claims and insults, you won't end up feeling good about yourself.

Merely stating my claims are unsupported does not make them so.  The readers perception is their reality and I would never attempt to cater to the "reality" of a person such as yourself.  You are no less blinkered than any other radical ideologue.  You are the person who can castigate the US for oppressing its citizens while lauding Castro or the Chavez government in Venezuela, a la Jeremy Corbin.  Intellectual consistency is entirely subjugated to ideological purity.  Feel free to vomit up yet another long winded rebuttal, I can punch holes in your inconsistencies all day.

[Dill]

(09-30-2017, 06:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't care how you respond, I care about the content.  Again, more insinuation of intellectual superiority, as boring as it is tiresome.

All I hear from you and your ilk is "personal insults".  I challenge your intellectual honesty, I hold your duplicity in contempt.  I also challenge your assertions in so doing.  In reducing these posts to "personal insults" all you are attempting to do is invalidate a claim without addressing it.  You're transparent, be aware of this and stop wasting our time.

Sorry no, there is no such thing as "anti-fascists".  Both they and fascists are merely fascists.  The target of your fascism, or the end of the spectrum it originates from, does not mitigate the ultimate end game.  That being violent subjugation of viewpoints you find unacceptable.  You, and any who defend this concept, are no less fascist than the brown shirted SA member of the NKVD commissar.

No more than claiming the guy who follows ISIS on Facebook is a member/sympathizer. 

Merely stating my claims are unsupported does not make them so.  The readers perception is their reality and I would never attempt to cater to the "reality" of a person such as yourself.  You are no less blinkered than any other radical ideologue.  You are the person who can castigate the US for oppressing its citizens while lauding Castro or the Chavez government in Venezuela, a la Jeremy Corbin.  Intellectual consistency is entirely subjugated to ideological purity.  Feel free to vomit up yet another long winded rebuttal, I can punch holes in your inconsistencies all day.

A moderator once asked us not to let discussions devolve into bitter pissing matches. 

I do not personally insult you, or go on and on about your "intellectual dishonesty" and how I hold you in contempt. That is emoting, not reasoning.  It is not "punching holes" in my inconsistencies.  It is just bad behavior.

Recognizing that I do not return insults, you appear to have shifted tack now, addressing not me, specifically, but others like me. It is from my "ilk" that you receive personal insults. (Those, somewhere, who have "castigated the US while lauding Castro" or claimed liking a facebook page constituted membership in ISIS.) So you can claim they said or did something and then hold me accountable because you've grouped me with them.  I am pretty sure the moderators will shut the thread down if that continues.  

Why not give this a rest for a couple days?  Then come back and we can discuss sensibly the question of whether people who oppose fascists are really fascists too, and whether collapsing these opposites into the same undermines the ground for any sensible ethics. These are interesting and valuable questions worth pursuing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-30-2017, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: A moderator once asked us not to let discussions devolve into bitter pissing matches. 

I do not personally insult you, or go on and on about your "intellectual dishonesty" and how I hold you in contempt. That is emoting, not reasoning.  It is not "punching holes" in my inconsistencies.  It is just bad behavior.

Yes, you do.  You do it in almost every post.  No one is buying your innocent routine, no one. 

Quote:Recognizing that I do not return insults, you appear to have shifted tack now, addressing not me, specifically, but others like me.

I am addressing you, and others like you.  By addressing others who exhibit your behavior I am not exempting you.

Quote:It is from my "ilk" that you receive personal insults. (Those, somewhere, who have "castigated the US while lauding Castro" or claimed liking a facebook page constituted membership in ISIS.) So you can claim they said or did something and then hold me accountable because you've grouped me with them.  I am pretty sure the moderators will shut the thread down if that continues.  

I just want you to know, I already bought you a big wooden cross for Christmas, so every time you feel like playing the martyr, like right now, you can climb up and nail yourself to it. 

Quote:Why not give this a rest for a couple days?

Quote:  Then come back and we can discuss sensibly the question of whether people who oppose fascists are really fascists too, and whether collapsing these opposites into the same undermines the ground for any sensible ethics. These are interesting and valuable questions worth pursuing.

Why would we discuss it further?  You have given your opinion.  You don't mind politically motivated violence as long as the targets of said violence are acceptable to you.  You have no problem with a public official liking the page of an extremist, violent organization.  You have no problem with the same public official being friends with one of the leaders of said organization.  You don't mind the David Dukes of the world, as long as your version of David Duke hates the people you hate.  You argue in circles and your arguments are stale.  

[GMDino]

(09-30-2017, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: A moderator once asked us not to let discussions devolve into bitter pissing matches. 

(10-01-2017, 02:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you do.  You do it in almost every post.  No one is buying your innocent routine, no one. 



I am addressing you, and others like you.  By addressing others who exhibit your behavior I am not exempting you.



I just want you to know, I already bought you a big wooden cross for Christmas, so every time you feel like playing the martyr, like right now, you can climb up and nail yourself to it.