forserious

You disagree with the idea that calling for violence one a large scale isn't ok?

Damn! You're right.

Who should we reach out to and ask them to stop saying what they're saying?

Maybe you can point me to the leader of the atheists while you're at it.

And...

"While authorities haven’t provided details on the medical emergencies, Greeson’s son said his father died from a heart attack mid-protest. Boyland died after being crushed by the crowd, according to one report, while Philips had a stroke, fellow protesters said."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/benjamin-philips-kevin-greeson...

Shocked to not hear back on this. /s

https://www.thedailybeast.com/benjamin-philips-kevin-greeson...

Just in case we need more...

"The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick's death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” At some point in the chaos "

Capitol Police said this...

Or are we only allowed to provide partial facts?

Maybe all of those gun shot victims I keep reading about are simply dying from loss of blood? My mistake...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/brian-sicknick-police-...

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=stroke%20after%20blunt%20forc...

I applaud your efforts pqhwan.

But this is the point I tried to make at the top of this thread.

These people are playing a game. They aren't interested in talking about this honestly.

Seriously, where is the legitimate debate about the events of this week?

Is anyone compelled by the idea that this seditious event was comparable to the women's march?

I don't know what tools we have to bring these people back. I wish I could point to something and say "here", this is how we can find common ground. But they are proving every day that they are more interested in this dishonest babble than engaging in serious discussion.

Again, for anyone whose made it this far. The fact that they are pretending that there is no difference between the women's march and the events this week are all you need to see to dismiss the rest of the justifications they put forth.

Don't fall for the trap. They wont argue "the point". They will deflect, lie and twist every issue to fit their narrative.

Please.

You're pretending that your "rational" arguments are anything other than bad faith.

It's difficult to take anything you say seriously when you can't admit that the actions this week are not the same as the women's march.

This is game that the rest of us are tired of being subjected to. The results of this style of thinking has just borne fruit thanks to the continued lying and obfuscating of the President and his gaggle of sycophants. The world is not confused about the dangerous actions that just transpired.

You are purposefully and willingly beyond reach.

They don't understand what bad faith is.

As if smashing doors and climbing through them while armed guards tell you not to with congress fleeing on the other side is not "directly threatened".

The absurdity of these arguments is astounding. What's worse, they seem to be thinking that they are making sense and that there is some global conspiracy on the left to "silence them".

The rest of the world is standing in awe and shock at the US.

I wont fall for this nonsense and I encourage anyone reaching this depth to recognize this as the problem we all have to learn to combat.

These people are far to accustom to being rewarded for this rhetoric and double speak.

As I said before, we must learn to call a spade a spade without being guilt tripped into pretending we can't notice the non-spades.

I say it again sir. This argument is bad faith.

As evidence, I encourage you to re-read your argument. Do you not see the difference of the events that YOU are describing?

Please...

There is no honest way to suggest that the events of this week are comparable to the events surrounding the protesting of appointments.

I will note however, that you're subtly changing the topic when you change your argument from the protests about the appointment of a judge to the "mostly peaceful protests".

Again, this is bad faith. You are just moving the goal posts to try and suite your argument.

Edit: I conflated the womens march with the protest about the appointment of scotus judge.

You clearly don't understand what a bad faith argument is. Every word you say demonstrates it.

Are you saying that references to other books is the equivalent to an algorithm designed to get more clicks?

Do you accept that there is a difference between r/dt and your bookshelf?

In principal, are they different technologies? Or is all information, regardless of medium equal?

You're right to call this false equivalence.

I think it's a mistake to argue the specifics. The parent comment here is arguing in bad faith.

This comment is why having this discussion is so difficult.

To anyone not invested emotionally in this conversation, it's clear that your point isn't making a valid point. They are not equivalent actions.

You're pretending they are to try to lend cover to the truly harmful action that just took place.

We can call a spade a spade without pretending that everything else is also a spade.

To be clear, I am directly saying that you are arguing in bad faith.

I hope it is clear that this is not an attack on you as a person. I am attacking your idea directly, not you.