because we're posting in pard and the negatives of me doing that are none.

if i called you a fuck and it made u mad it would be 1000x more effect than me saying i wish the McMichaels to be raped by 400 lb black men in prison for the rest of their lives.

So if a person actually was a scumbag and he was a violent criminal then it is justifiable to say he is an angel if he was killed in a controversial manner....and if that bothers you then you must be racist....solid fucking logic.

I mean, it seems you're both pretty far to either side. fender's all about "it was a racist lynching!" and you're all "filthy criminal got what he deserved!"

Seems somewhere in the middle would be the logical conclusion though, no?

On the one hand, you have a couple guys who opted to take justice into their own hands rather than simply calling the police, and at the very most maybe following from a distance to help police locate the suspect, and to determine if the suspect is "dumping evidence" would have been warranted.

On the other hand, you have a guy who went full-on attack rather than having a simple talk to determine what he was doing in an under-construction house that wasn't his. The person has a rich criminal history, and is a couple miles away from home, and the property owner had reported breakins and thefts, as well as a couple vehicles having breakins and thefts reported prior.

It's certainly a controversial case. I fail to see the "racism" angle to it. I also fail to see anything that would lead to a murder 1 charge sticking. Involuntary manslaughter I could see easily sticking. But really, we'll just have to wait and see. What we DO know is that he WAS in the house, they witnessed him exit and take off running, so he WAS guilty of a crime (trespassing/B&E). Beyond that, until the case has gone to trial, the majority of the evidence won't be presented to the public regardless.



The key word in PaRD is "debate". To debate something, you need to analyze all the facts available. If you wander into a topic where you know next to nothing about it and fail to even attempt to find those facts which are available, you aren't debating at all.

You calling me or anyone else "a fuck" accomplishes nothing whatsoever. It's merely a method to attempt to shut down a debate, rather than carry one out.

The D in PaRD stands for discussion, not debate.

You don't need all the facts to have a debate or discussion.

Calling you a fuck probably makes you angry, which is a worthwhile accomplishment.

Discussion and debate are synonyms, and calling people names is an attempt to shut it down.

And not having the facts in a debate or discussion means your conclusions are pretty worthless, as they're based strictly on opinion, not anything real.

And it doesn't upset me at all. If anything it makes me sad that otherwise intelligent people would resort to trying to shut down discussions rather than inform themselves well enough to participate.

fail on even knowing what pard stands for, sounds like u know next to nothing about pard.

i wasn't calling you a fuck, i was making the point that what i say about public figures here doesnt affect those public figures, because we're a small fringe of the internet. and i was saying me calling someone a fuck, a rather small offense, is still 1000x more effectual.

you missed my point entirely, but u want me to take you seriously in a debate? you cant even follow an A to B example it seems.

and when i asked you if the attack was on camera it was rhetorical, ive already read several rundowns of what is and isnt on camera. another one of my points u missed, lets see if u get there now, you fuck.



maybe the D actually stands for Doubledown.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 20 2020 01:55pm

Debates are adversarial, discussion is cooperative. They are only synonyms in a loose sense, and regardless synonym doesn't mean equivilant.

You will never have every fact and so the confidence in any conclusion should be weighted with the understanding that more facts can come out.

You seem angry

Your premise is false. Discussion is cooperative? That only occurs when the discussion has no persuasion involved. If you have 2 likeminded people who are simply adding information about a subject with no subjective opinion involved, sure.

Any discussion centered around politics and religion among a diverse crowd is almost always persuasive in nature. Persuasive discussion between people with differing opinions is debate.

You and snipa both seem angry, frankly. Have a beer and relax.

You can persuade and be persuaded while being cooperative. It's far easier to persuade somebody who is cooperating with you than somebody being adversarial.

In a debate your goal is to prove your argument is correct, or at least more correct, than the other party. In a discussion the goal is to come to a consensus. That's why when two people with irreconcilable ideals go on stage and talk at each other its called a debate, and when two people who largely agree talk on stage it's a discussion. In the former they aren't attempting to convince each other, but may convince the audience. In the latter, they may convince each other and the audience, or not.

If you think we're angry then you're too much of a snowflake to be productive here.

Your entire post is nonsense, so I simply highlighted the TL:DR version.

First: Debate is not and never was about two people screaming at each other. It's about opposing viewpoints attempting to persuade each other to their side. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Using something like a stage debate as an example of a discussion isn't an example of why it's not a debate at all. You're debating the merits of a viewpoint, or multiple viewpoints. Your end goal is to persuade.

Claiming that a discussion can be persuasive without debate is simply wrong. If you're attempting to persuade a person to your viewpoint that they don't share, you have to counter their arguments, and provide incentive (facts, typically) as to why your viewpoint is better.

The idea that the goal of a discussion is consensus isn't even right. If we're talking about Captain Marvel being a quality movie, there'll never be a consensus. Consensus stops at "Captain Marvel is a movie". There's no consensus in opinion. Hence why there are still people around who view Hitler as having done nothing wrong.

And you appear to be angry because you will completely ignore the topic of discussion to engage in a personal attack. Personal attacks are designed to end the debate, end the attempt to persuade, end the discussion, end the sharing of information.

fender at least is honest. "A black guy was shot, it was a racist murder, if you disagree you're a racist murder apologist". He doesn't want a discussion, persuasive or otherwise. You come across with this veneer of thinking you're a brilliant conversationalist, yet your posts are more pathetic than fenders are.