Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by dstovall5, Oct 26, 2015.
He never shown he gets angry.Those are the people you don't want to see angry lol.
First you have no ideawhat you are even arguing. You changed the argument when a I pointed out the error of logical truth when you alluded to "guns on a bed" supports an argument for someones negative character. Your argument can be easily disproven if somewhere in the universe someone had guns on a bed but seemingly still had good character. Your argument point is therefore neither universal nor tautological..
So you move to the "everyone judges everything." Another Extreme sweeping statement. Your example assigned to me is that I would judge a friend hitting on my wife...just about as strawman as it gets and completely specious an example or analogy as it gets. If anyone DIRECTLY is disrespectful to me or my family in or around my home and I saw or was told by a family member that they were uncomfortable, that is light years away from forming an opinion on someone from a media driven story where a case was dismissed and as sensationalized from an irrelevant "fact" that legally owned guns were out earlier. But I played along and said the mere fact of a friend "hitting" on my wife isnt a need to jump to judgement, there is context around that you just gloss over.
AGAIN, my argument is I have no basis to judge Hardy on a dismissed case with holes in the midst of getting expunged and a "perceived photo of irresponsible gun ownership" (more on that later). This is because I have no first hand knowledge of Hardy and his case, the guns that were seen by a third "independent" party were prior to the incident, THerefore, how and why they got out amongst showing to multiple people was likely not in connection with a crime, but could be from curiosity of the visitors - who knows.
In fact you basically set the strawman up as "owning guns laid on the bed for the world to see was a universal negative character trait" as it fit with your 3rd hand perception of Hardy. In reality, you editorialized the "for the world to see" to strengthen connection. You continually have opined upon a case with very little true info, accepted it as truth, and keep score at everything that you dont "like" for whatever predisposition or discimination you assign to it..
Lets go back to "your facts" that made you form judgement
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article9140591.html#storylink=cpy
So this "photo for the world to see" was taken by a visitor earlier in the day when no conflict was going on. Not by Hardy and not posted as a sign of "hard ol black gangbanger" There is actual testimony he had a safe as well.
So the entire linkage between guns and character and guilt is a supposition and bias solely from you. You have assigned this as a universal truth to "everyone knows." However, This can be refuted with examples of people with guns who have never committed a crime. So we will strike that off as fallacious point about character. Then you switch to "everyone judges." Which you need to support your clear certainty with Hardy's character.
And no everyone doesnt judge, everyone doesnt judge what 2 consenting adults do in privacy of their property. I dont care if Han Solo takes Chewbacca in the back room for a shave. Because it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. Some adults are Poly-amourous. Could not care less. I can only care about what directly affects MY private life. And before you give me the " you dont care about community" spiel, my examples are about consenting adults abiding by the law. I dont have to judge what you want me to judge. That is an assignment. I am pointing out your judgements are based on specious and non-facts. That is fine if you wish to do that - But not everyone does.
No not quite. Homosexuality was a pretty common occurrence in ancient Rome and Greece. It was shunned under monotheistic religions, it has moved back to acceptable in some parts and given the death penalty still in other parts. Not all laws are just and subjective . Not all morals are universal. Alcohol was legal, then not, then legal. Pot was illegal, becoming legal. Speeding is always illegal, but not many really look negatively on speeding tickets.
The "predominantly gang-related black person" comment pretty much solidifies your arguing assuming your belief is universal. Thankfully it is not.
now you are drawing the linkage between Hardy and Guns and Gangsta. Hardy's mom was a detective near Memphis TN, he played at Briarcrest with Michel Oher. I watched a few of those games living in Memphis and working at FedEx Head office from 2001-4. There was NEVER any allusion to him being in a gang. The facts are he legally owned guns, had a safe and had them out one day when visitors were there. Maybe he was asked to see them? maybe he was cleaning them? There are a plethora of reasons to have them out and having them out can only be defined as "being irresponsible" is your bias. It was your universal assignment. I gave plausible reasons why he had them out -IN HIS HOUSE.
And the complete sentence is "You are a person who stereotypes and draws conclusions on bias if someone doesnt conform to you puritanical views on behavior" It is scary. Also I never brought up the first amendment - whatever throwaway linkage you tried to apply there
If I saw Greg Hardy on the street, he would the last person I would worry about shooting or accosting me. And I bet 99.999% of the board would feel the same way.[/quote]
You use words you have no idea how they apply.
First, logical truth is redundant.
Second, I didn't change the argument. My argument was that in the black culture displaying guns is associated with the gangsta culture. Interestingly, you ignored my qualifier. You offered an example of guns being displayed for other reasons. Then you added that your examples were from whites, and that you have never seen a black person with a gun.
So, in essence, you gave another culture example that doesn't fit my example. You call that changing the argument. But in actuality, you ignored my context.
Third, my original argument is that what people do, what they say, the choices they make says something about them. Even a person who displays his guns in such a manner, that display says something about that person. That isn't a moral statement. That's an observational statement.
It's not my fault you don't understand the difference.
Which is also a true statement and one being proven even now. You've made an assessment of me based on the presentation of my argument.
Uh, no. That's not a strawman. I asked you how would you feel if your friend hit on your wife. Then you said if he were looking at her creepy, maybe that would be different. You assigned YOURSELF that response.
Again, you don't understand what a strawman is.
You played along. Translation: you acknowledged my point but didn't want to say you acknowledged my point.
Second, you say the example is "light years" away, but you confirmed my point, which, again, is what people do, how they respond and the decisions they make tell us something about those people. It doesn't matter whether that information comes from personal observation or media observation. I'm speaking about general truth; you're speaking about situational truth.
That's fine if that's your opinion. That's not the argument, which is why I called you on your strawman. My point I've reiterated several times. I'm not talking legality. My point goes beyond the legality of the case. But if you don't get it now, I don't think you ever will.
Again, you don't know what a strawman is. It's amusing to read people use terms they don't understand. A strawman is a device where an opponent ascribes an argument to another, different from the argument the another is making. I didn't assign the "guns on the bed" to you. That is an observation made based on information from the case.
Second, I didn't say it was a "universal negative trait". Now, see, that's a strawman. You know how to employ it even if you don't know the definition.
He had a safe, but the weapons were out of the safe and on a futon. Hhhmmm, I guess he was showing them for insurance purposes.
Second, please read what the witness said:
Now read my statement for context:
Your inability to understand arguments in context is astounding. You say I'm making a link between guns and character. See, this is what is called a strawman.
And it's interesting that in one of the very first posts I wrote to you I said:
What are the other things that factor into people's judgment of Hardy? From your link:
You made this about gun control, but that's not what I was talking about. I said the gun display is one link in other links that cause people to make conclusions about Hardy.
What you've done and argued, my friend, is a CLASSIC case of strawmanitis.
Actually, you do judge. The fact that you continue to argue this point and defend Hardy means you're totally fine with what he does. THAT is a judgment.
It is impossible for people to not judge. That's how we evaluate life, how we determine our attitudes and perceptions of places, people, things and what our response should be. You've judged me.
You can say with your mouth one thing, but your actions betray you. It is basic in the nature of people to judge, whether that judgment is "I'm okay with it" or "I'm not okay with it."
What? This came out of left field and deserves no response.
So you have another contemporary example outside of the military and law enforcement of black guys brandishing guns that's NOT a portrayal of gangsta lifestyle?
Despite your protestation, yes, it is the common view of young black men and guns, outside of those men being police and soldiers. I know this better than you.
Did I say Hardy was in a gang? Many black men aren't in gangs but have embraced the gangsta image. And people judge them accordingly.
You're flinging a lot of hay.
First, I brought up the First Amendment. I didn't say you did. Try to keep up.
Second, so making an evaluation of a person having lots of guns is puritanical? Heh!
Third, I'm glad I'm able to make perceptive judgments. I'm glad I'm not naïve and ignore information that helps me to make proper decisions in life about people. It's called DISCERNMENT.
Fourth, it interesting that you label what you think I do "scary." So much for not making judgments, eh.
Fifth, whether you like it or not, people make judgments and evaluations of their surroundings, the people in their community, etc. That's a part of human nature. You're simply trying to win an argument - and doing a poor job at it. But what I'm saying is a universal truth.
Good for you. I never said he would shoot or accost me. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate what I've been saying all along: The decisions people make, the company they keep, the actions they take all paint a picture of them and tell people a little about them. And people will take that information and draw conclusions and judgments. And that is why the media and people who watch the media have made judgments about Hardy.
One thing is evident despite the different opinions expressed in this thread: Greg Hardy is a cancer ... for the fan base.
The law of unintended consequences.
We can end it. You keep ascribing that I made it about gun control-never said it. You can keep thinking your the smartest guy in the room, but I've laid out pretty succinctly how you linkage is irrelevant and you throw out extreme irrelevant scenarios. You keep redefiNing anything you want and missapplying.
Logical truth is a fundamental tenant in logic...not close to redundant. Google it.
If it's important for you to win. Enjoy your victory. Frankly, I cant waste another second on someone who is this obtuse and holier than thou and revert to stereotyping race. I formed that opinion through direct empirical evidence and didn't need a third party to form my opinion for me
At then of the day you are an Internet nobody - like me. But I do have 100 things more important than this tete a tete
Yes, you did. I've quoted your posts. You can't run from what you've typed here.
Your intellectual inadequacies are showing. I don't believe I'm the smartest guys in the room. You apparently feel that you're not as smart which is why you draw attention to something that isn't even an issue.
However, I do believe I'm a good judge on human nature. And, yes, what I said about everybody making judgments is on point. We couldn't exist as people without making judgments. But notice I didn't assign an adjective to judgment. That's your doing. I'm not saying judgment is good or bad nor am I saying people can't be incorrect in their judgment. I'm simply saying that people make judgments about their environment and the people in their environment.
I'm sorry if you're so intellectually dishonest that you can't acknowledge this fundamental point because you're more interested in winning an argument.
You don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not redefining anything, especially when I'm the one declaring certain principles. You're the one making this a legal and a gun control issue when that's not what I was talking about. You're the one who calling examples strawmen and ignoring the basic definition of a strawman. Your inability to understand and apply terms is not my redefining them.
I'll Google it as soon as you Google strawman.
And yet you wasted another second typing this response even after you said, oh like three posts back, that that post was your "last words" on this topic.
Again, you say one thing with your mouth, but your actions betray you.
Second, you do know there is a truth in stereotypes, right? Stereotypes aren't wrong because they aren't right; they're wrong because they don't apply to every situation. It's not my fault that you segment my statement a part from my entire discussion about patterns.
But that's your inability to treat my argument comprehensively. I've outlined my point thoroughly. Sorry, you were unwilling to understand it.
And if properly evaluating an issue and making judgments from actions is being holier than thou, how about polishing my halo.
Moreover, what direct empirical evidence have you evaluated? Were you at Hardy's trial? Were you present at his apartment the night of the alleged crime? Did you see the pictures? Do you know the purpose of Hardy displaying them on the futon? Do you know if he was displaying them for insurance purposes?
No, you evaluate the same as I - by media reports of the incident. How ironic, you whine about the media, yet you provide a link from the MEDIA that informs you and from which you gather your information.
And you're an Internet somebody?
And what does it say about you that you have 100 things to do and you went on and on with me, despite saying that you were finished a few pages ago?
If you've wasted all this time with an Internet nobody, that doesn't say too much about you now does it? A somebody arguing with a nobody makes that somebody a nobody himself. It's like arguing with a fictitious person.
I guess this is one of those fundamental observations that will fly over your head also.