Re: Yes he did
Posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2024-July-21 08:14:57, SundayIn reply to Re: Yes he did posted by mark194 on 2024-July-20 19:16:17, Saturday
|
Ah, so I guess you are just seizing on this tangent because you have no response to anything else. That's pretty lame, but it's ok, we can talk about this Again, its not a tangent. Its part of the discussion we are having. And is pretty important as to how we proceed, as I will get into later That is actually not how the argument went Yes it is. Yes, you responded to other statements I made, but as far as the number of people who died is concerned, that is the argument. a question you dodged, by the way I am not dodging it. There are many points of discussion, I dont want to get bogged down in multiple threads and subjects going off in different directions in the same post. We can look at that next if you like. After we are done with this one. The meat of my response to what you wrote is laid out above. I didn't just say "but actually 5 people died!!" and present that as a rebuttal to everything you said. Why did you say it then? What was your purpose in bringing that up? I am not saying its a rebuttal of everything I said, but it certainly appears to be a rebuttal to my claim that the mob wasnt intent on physical violence, or that only one person died. Heres what you said, in response to my single sentence that you quoted The only person that died that day was one of the "mob" This is blatantly untrue as well. Five people died, and one of them was a police officer. Stop speaking authoritatively on things you know nothing about. So you werent implying that violence caused 5 peoples deaths? That the mob killed a police officer? Someone reading this discussion could certainly jump to that conclusion from reading what was said. Was it just so you could accuse me of speaking authoritatively on things I know nothing about? You have said this multiple times in your replies now, and I dont think it adds anything to the discussion. Have I said anything of the sort, or made any adhominems in my replies to you? Can we leave them out from now on? Can we also leave out accusations of intellectual dishonesty? I can accept that I should have been clearer about what I said, and said instead The only person that died that day from violence was one of the "mob" Do you now accept my statement that "The only person that died that day from violence was one of the mob"? it was just that you don't know the basic facts of what happened on Jan 6th. Do you now accept that I know at least some of the facts? Close. My argument is that there was a dangerous violent mob, bent on getting the election results overturned. How were they going to do that? By violence and murder. Why are you quibbling on this? Was it, or was it not , in your opinion, a dangerous violent mob, intent on murder, or at least willing to use murder, in order to achieve its goals? are we just bringing up random unrelated stuff at this point? Its not random unrelated stuff. Its an example of an actual dangerous violent mob, that actually killed people. As opposed to this dangerous violent mob that didnt kill anyone. Yes, you have. Trump didn't intend what happened, he didn't incite the riot, That is not my interpretation. I have no idea what trump actually intended. And neither do you. My position is simply that I do not accept your interpretation of events. You cannot reach the conclusions you have about trumps intentions, and his supposed control and direction of the mob, based on things that he said in his speech, or his belief that the election was stolen. There is too much mind reading involved, or putting your own biases and interpretation onto words that can have multiple meanings, even in the same context. Is it a possible and plausible interpretation? sure. But so is the interpretation that he didnt intend what happened. Me saying I dont accept your interpretation, does not mean that I automatically accept the other interpretation. My answer to "what really happened on Jan 6th?" is "I dont know". You have not yet given me any reason to accept your interpretation as the true one. the rioters were unarmed, the rioters were not carrying firearms. I accept that they may have picked up random stuff to use as weapons. I will even accept that a small number of them may have carried personal firearms. But it was not a mob armed with guns and intent to use them. 3 people were charged with firearm possession. |
Follow ups: