No. Say where you are now, or we’re done.
:rolleyes: sounds like someone is having trouble finding consequences for the slaveowner thing.
Sounds like someone won’t man up and state his own beliefs. Sounds like someone is an imbecile or a troll. Either way, we’re done.
Rand, you lovable goofball, your ridiculous claim has no bearing on whether LHoD’s claim (which I also think is wrong) is correct or not.
Let’s say you go to the kitchen and you’re out of cookies. Which of these people could potentially be at fault?
- Kid 1, who ate all the cookies this morning.
- Kid 2, who ate all the cookies three years ago and nobody bothered to ever get more.
Well, we’d certainly say that Kid 1 was the more proximate cause of the lack of cookies in the kitchen. Whether Kid 2 ate all the cookies three years ago or not is irrelevant to who’s at fault. Surely nobody is so lazy or inept that if they want cookies, they would be unable to do so for three years. Who’d even bring up Kid 2’s actions? Someone who’s trying to muddy the issue, that’s who.
Now, you know full well that Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves cannot be considered a proximate cause of racists sending death threats to Gates. I don’t think Crowley’s actions were either, but we can all be damn sure Lincoln wasn’t to blame. Who would bring up Lincoln? Probably someone trying to erect a straw man, that’s who.
It was a bad arrest and totally unnecessary.
Hold up: two mistakes here, if I’m following you correctly:
- I’ve never made any claim at all regarding the moral responsibility of slaveowners for deaths during slave revolts. I’ve held off on this more nuanced situation until we can get the basics resolved, but Rand Rover learned to argue from a retarded orangutan, so we apparently can’t even get that far.
- The issue isn’t whether such claims are correct or incorrect; the issue is whether such claims have meaning. Someone who denies moral responsibility in a particular case may well be making a reasonable argument. Someone who denies that claims of moral responsibility have any meaning is just a dumbshit.
Well, of course. I think Rand’s not even trying to address these issues. He’s just going to put up strawmen because he’s trolling (as he’s admitted to doing several times in this forum before).
I’d just rather he be honest about doing it. I mean, if he either lacks the intelligence or the balls to argue a point, and just wants to throw around insults, so be it. But admit it, either way.
You are being ridiculous. You want assurance that I will believe your argument before you make it. It really looks like you just aren’t man enough to admit that your consequences framework doesn’t really work for the slaveowner issue so it really is meaningless.
THat is, of course, nothing like what I’ve done.
We have the basics resolved. You have a framework, now apply it to the slaveowner situation.
I think you’re absolutely right, but I’ve given up on the honesty thing from him.
Sure, but the death threats are hardly a foreseeable consequence.
What’s the point?
(Metal, or stone?)
The only point was showing off my barbed wit.
As opposed to a death invitation:
Sir;
We find it probable that you hold attitudes and beliefs hostile to one or more minority groups considered by us to be unjustly vulnerable; socially, economically, or otherwise.
We cordially invite you to cease and desist any and all activities that might be described as ‘living’ at your earliest convenience. Moving to Delaware will suffice.
Yours humbly,
Loony Nutjob, Esq.
really. I am sure Crowley did not intend for it to happen. Drunk driver do not intend to kill people either.
Boy, you nailed it. Crowley is exactly like the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed by the state to drive drunk. Clearly, the only remedy is for police to ignore every 911 call in which there’s a chance someone black is involved. (Which may already be the unofficial policy for black victims, but let’s err on the side of caution…)
If I may, I would it’s not that LHoD wants you to agree to his argument before he makes it, but that he wants to know if you agree with the process by which that argument comes about. Essentially, that the framework he’s suggested can be accurate, not that any argument he makes with the framework is correct, just that that basic framework is something you believe could produce a convincing argument and in and of itself is not something you’d necessarily disagree with.
LHOD, you are such weak sauce. You thought you had me nailed with your whole consequences framework for Jim stealing ice cream (or whatever), but you tried to apply it to slaveowners being morally responsible for slave uprisings and found out that you couldn’t make it work. So then you tried to blame me somehow.
You said you would continue if I showed that I understand your framework. I showed that I understand it. So continue.
It’s funny that not a single sentence in this post is accurate.