Domestic Terrorism

[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.