The Tolerant Left at it again

[CJD]

(10-11-2019, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, they have nothing to do with Military action. 

Is saying there was no violence by the protesters accurate? 

Maybe not the traditional definition of militia such as the one used in the Second Amendment, but definitely a group meant to keep the peace would fit a modern definition of the word.

I've not personally seen videos of violence. I've found several Fox News reports of the stand off between protesters and cops, I've found footage of the burning trump hats. Oddly enough, none of the videos I found were from left sources (which is a statement to how the media operates in and of itself), so I can't even say these videos are leftist edited or anything like that. I don't want to dig much deeper, as I've spent like 30 minutes trying to find videos of violence and come up empty. I'm not ruling out the fact that some video of violence may exist. In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't some but there was none in your opening video or the ones I found. The article seems to have been accurate based on the search I've done. But I'm open to the possibility that I have not looked deep enough.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 10:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not denying that I posted it and then deleted it because the post was not becoming of me. I mean, I literally acknowledged that I said that... lol?

I am calling you dishonest for claiming that my comments were because he had a different point of view. They were because he said "Ok, so then political violence is fine, so long as no one runs a car into a crowd, gotcha. "

Fair enough and I agree his response may have been hyperbolic. That doesn't change the fact that you are trying to suggest these instances are not similar simply because one victim survived and another did not. 

Both meant to do harm to folks that have a different opinion than them. They are exactly the same as Sunset suggests.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2019, 10:11 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Maybe not the traditional definition of militia such as the one used in the Second Amendment, but definitely a group meant to keep the peace would fit a modern definition of the word.

I've not personally seen videos of violence. I've found several Fox News reports of the stand off between protesters and cops, I've found footage of the burning trump hats. Oddly enough, none of the videos I found were from left sources (which is a statement to how the media operates in and of itself), so I can't even say these videos are leftist edited or anything like that. I don't want to dig much deeper, as I've spent like 30 minutes trying to find videos of violence and come up empty. I'm not ruling out the fact that some video of violence may exist. In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't some but there was none in your opening video or the ones I found. The article seems to have been accurate based on the search I've done. But I'm open to the possibility that I have not looked deep enough.

Here is the best reporting you will find on the event, as it is the local paper: http://www.startribune.com/protesters-start-arriving-leading-up-to-trump-rally-in-minneapolis/562749432/

There were some minor altercations, but not as bad as it is being made to seem.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 10:11 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Maybe not the traditional definition of militia such as the one used in the Second Amendment, but definitely a group meant to keep the peace would fit a modern definition of the word.

I've not personally seen videos of violence. I've found several Fox News reports of the stand off between protesters and cops, I've found footage of the burning trump hats. Oddly enough, none of the videos I found were from left sources (which is a statement to how the media operates in and of itself), so I can't even say these videos are leftist edited or anything like that. I don't want to dig much deeper, as I've spent like 30 minutes trying to find videos of violence and come up empty. I'm not ruling out the fact that some video of violence may exist. In fact, I would be surprised if there wasn't some but there was none in your opening video or the ones I found. The article seems to have been accurate based on the search I've done. But I'm open to the possibility that I have not looked deep enough.

Here you go:
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/10/left-wing-rioters-attack-trump-supporters-leaving-minneapolis-rally/

I answered your question directly and honestly. Do you care to do the same after clicking on just the first embedded video in the link provided?

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2019, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair enough and I agree his response may have been hyperbolic. That doesn't change the fact that you are trying to suggest these instances are not similar simply because one victim survived and another did not. 

Both meant to do harm to folks that have a different opinion than them. They are exactly the same as Sunset suggests.  

I keep using the words "same" and "equal" not "similar" because he used the words "equal" and "same". I take issue with saying they're the "same" or "equal". 

The fact that someone died means that it's not equal to someone getting punched. I didn't think I needed to even mention the 2 cops who died in a helicopter crash trying to assist at Charlottesville and the over 30 people treated for injuries to stress the fact that it's wrong to suggest that last night was as bad as the Charlottesville tragedy, but apparently I do. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 10:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I keep using the words "same" and "equal" not "similar" because he used the words "equal" and "same". I take issue with saying they're the "same" or "equal". 

The fact that someone died means that it's not equal to someone getting punched. I didn't think I needed to even mention the 2 cops who died in a helicopter crash trying to assist at Charlottesville and the over 30 people treated for injuries to stress the fact that it's wrong to suggest that last night was as bad as the Charlottesville tragedy, but apparently I do. 

The action of the actors are "exact, same" and in my opinion that was Sunset's reasoning for bringing up Charlottesville; not trying to compare getting killed to getting punched (unless of course the punch kills you). The difference is the outcome. Does intent not matter in your assertion of equal? 

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The action of the actors are "exact, same" and in my opinion that was Sunset's reasoning for bringing up Charlottesville; not trying to compare getting killed to getting ounched (unless of course the punch kills you). The difference is the outcome. Does intent not matter in your assertion of equal? 

Intent and outcome both matter. Intent alone makes it "similar" not the "same" if we're discussing the event as a whole, as Sunset and I were. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 10:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Intent and outcome both matter. Intent alone makes it "similar" not the "same" if we're discussing the event as a whole, as Sunset and I were. 

In both instances the actors intended to harm someone. What makes the intent not the same? 

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2019, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In both instances the actors intended to harm someone. What makes the intent not the same? 

The intent was similar but not "the same". One drove into 30 people, intending to harm them all. One punched one person, intending to harm the one person. It's similar not same.

Also, we're talking about the event as a whole.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 10:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The intent was similar but not "the same". One drove into 30 people, intending to harm them all. One punched one person, intending to harm the one person. It's similar not same.

Also, we're talking about the event as a whole.

And I'm talking about the actions of the folks; as I feel Sunset was doing. But it seems to appear you've moved the goalpost from a death (which was your original issue, to numbers). Of course one happened in MN and one happened in VA so is suppose you are correct in stating they weren't exactly the same, but I feel we are getting caught up in semantics more than the actions. The events as a whole are exactly the same. Folks with different ideology trying to do harm to each other. The details make them similar.

I'll leave this back and forth by asking one question and no reply to your honest answer:

Do you think the driver in Charlottesville intended to kill anyone?

 

[BmorePat87]

(10-11-2019, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I'm talking about the actions of the folks; as I feel Sunset was doing. But it seems to appear you've moved the goalpost from a death (which was your original issue, to numbers). Of course one happened in MN and one happened in VA so is suppose you are correct in stating they weren't exactly the same, but I feel we are getting caught up in semantics more than the actions. The events as a whole are exactly the same. Folks with different ideology trying to do harm to each other. The details make them similar.

I'll leave this back and forth by asking one question and no reply to your honest answer:

Do you think the driver in Charlottesville intended to kill anyone?

 

I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stood firm on the fact that I am taking issue with calling the events "same" and "equal".

You have moved it from talking about the events being the same to talking about the intent of the perpetrator being "similar".

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 11:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not moving any goalposts. I have stood firm on the fact that I am taking issue with calling the events "same" and "equal".

You have moved it from talking about the events being the same to talking about the intent of the perpetrator being "similar".

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. 

[CJD]

(10-11-2019, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here you go:
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/10/left-wing-rioters-attack-trump-supporters-leaving-minneapolis-rally/

I answered your question directly and honestly. Do you care to do the same after clicking on just the first embedded video in the link provided?

Okay, I see there was a man who was pushed but didn't fall down. It still is not okay but if that was the extent of the violence, then I think the article was mostly accurate. They shouldn't use absolutes like "no violence" though so for that they get a mark.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 11:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Okay, I see there was a man who was pushed but didn't fall down. It still is not okay but if that was the extent of the violence, then I think the article was mostly accurate. They shouldn't use absolutes like "no violence" though so for that they get a mark.

AKA violence. I'm sure we're all happy he maintained his balance and didn't fall and hit his head (although there are other views showing folks swinging at him). But that doesn't change the biased slant of the article linked. Or what the Left considers"fair".

[CJD]

(10-11-2019, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: AKA violence. I'm sure we're all happy he maintained his balance and didn't fall and hit his head (although there are other views showing folks swinging at him). But that doesn't change the biased slant of the article linked. Or what the Left considers"fair".

Yea, they shouldn't have said there was no violence.
They should have said there was very little violence.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2019, 11:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, they shouldn't have said there was no violence.
They should have said there was very little violence.

Well that may not be 100% accurate as there are reports of over 40 people getting their hats forceably removed, there's another video of a dude getting spat on, and reports of cops getting bottles of urine thrown at them.

But I understand why you think that should be phrased as very little violence,  instead of violence. 

[CJD]

(10-11-2019, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well that may not be 100% accurate as there are reports of over 40 people getting their hats forceably removed, there's another video of a dude getting spat on, and reports of cops getting bottles of urine thrown at them.

But I understand why you think that should be phrased as very little violence,  instead of violence. 

I think videos are the most unbiased way we can possibly look at this event and the videos have shown very little violence.

 I can't speak towards the urine or spit things. If they happened, that's despicable. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2019, 12:00 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think videos are the most unbiased way we can possibly look at this event and the videos have shown very little violence.

 I can't speak towards the urine or spit things. If they happened, that's despicable. 

Of course you're right. We shouldn't consider things such as reports by multiple news sources. BTW look through the rest of the videos embedded in my link provided. 

WTS, I'm sure you'd be fine with multiple Trump supporters attacking one Elizabeth Warren supporter being described in a fair article  as very little violence. 

[CJD]

(10-12-2019, 12:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're right. We shouldn't consider things such as reports by multiple news sources. BTW look through the rest of the videos embedded in my link provided. 

WTS, I'm sure you'd be fine with multiple Trump supporters attacking one Elizabeth Warren supporter being described in a fair article  as very little violence. 

I looked through them. Circling trump supporters isn't a good look. Also isn't violence.

If there were a protest at a Warren rally and it was stand offs and circlings and burnings of stuff like we see here with one or two people pushed or shoved, I'd be upset like you are, but if an article said something along the lines of "This was very contentious, though there was very little violence" I would generally consider that a fair assessment.

If it said there was no violence, I'd want that corrected to the fair assessment of the above statement.

[*bfine32*]

(10-12-2019, 12:08 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I looked through them. Circling trump supporters isn't a good look. Also isn't violence.

If there were a protest at a Warren rally and it was stand offs and circlings and burnings of stuff like we see here with one or two people pushed or shoved, I'd be upset like you are, but if an article said something along the lines of "This was very contentious, though there was very little violence" I would generally consider that a fair assessment.

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.