Re: Yes he did
Posted by mark194 on 2024-July-21 20:09:04, SundayIn reply to Re: Yes he did posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2024-July-21 08:14:57, Sunday
|
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 I dispute that it's important. As I explained, it wasn't a significant part of my argument like you seem to be suggesting. True, it is part of the discussion, but not a significant one. If you'd prefer, I could say "insignificant point" or "minor detail" or whatever instead of "tangent". Yes it is. No it's not. You presented it as if I said 5 people died as a rebuttal of your claim that there's no evidence the mob tried to kill anyone, when I actually did not. 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. Ok, fair enough. I would like to hear your answer to that though. 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. I wasn't trying to, no. I will admit that what I said could have come across that way and that I maybe should have been more clear. Was it just so you could accuse me of speaking authoritatively on things I know nothing about? Yes, that was the entire point, like I said. You confidently said something that wasn't true, and I wanted to point that out. Admittedly, you might have just meant "only one person died from actual violence". Apologies if I was being uncharitable. You have said this multiple times in your replies now, and I dont think it adds anything to the discussion On the contrary, I think it does add to the discussion. If you're authoritatively saying stuff about the riot that is blatantly not true, I think that deserves to be called out. I think it would actually detract from the discussion if I saw you say stuff like "the mob didn't have weapons" and just let it stand without calling it out. Same goes for stuff that isn't technically factually incorrect but is extremely misleading ("they were wandering around inside and interacting with security"). Have I said anything of the sort, or made any adhominems in my replies to you? Can we leave them out from now on? You have not said anything of the sort, because you're the only one doing this. I haven't made any blatantly false statements for you to criticize me about. I also haven't made any ad hominems. Can we also leave out accusations of intellectual dishonesty? Have I accused you of being intellectually dishonest? I know I've accused you of not being intellectually curious or rigorous about this topic (which I stand by), but I don't think I've ever accused you of this. I guess saying that you're seizing on this tangent because you don't have a response to anything else could be considered an accusation of intellectual dishonesty? If so, I'll leave out that accusation if you do respond to the other stuff I said. Do you now accept my statement that "The only person that died that day from violence was one of the mob"? Yes, of course. How were they going to do that? By violence and murder. Why are you quibbling on this? It's not a quibble; I think it's important what their ultimate intentions are. Even if they all got together beforehand and said "Ok guys, no matter what, we're going to make sure we don't kill anyone!", it was still an insurrection, because they were trying to overturn the election results by using violence. 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? It seems like it was, yeah. 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. But what's your point in bringing it up? BLM killed people, and this mob didn't, so there's no evidence of this mob wanting to kill anyone? I don't think that's a sound argument. The BLM mobs have some similarities to the Jan 6th mob and killed more people, sure, but I don't think they are relevant to my or your argument. Also, do you acknowledge that a mob doesn't have to kill anyone in order to be violent and dangerous? 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. First of all, as I've said, Trump didn't believe the election was stolen, and I've never supposed that in order to reach a conclusion about Trump's intentions. Second of all, I'm not basing my conclusion solely on what Trump said in his speech. I think the fact that he waited 3 hours to call off the mob is also very significant. If Trump said "You need to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore", but then after the crowd starting rioting he said "Woah, that's not what I meant! Don't do that - you need to stop and go home!" we'd be having a completely different conversation. As far as his "supposed control and direction" of the mob: when he told them to go to the Capitol and fight like hell, they went to the Capitol and fought like hell. When he tweeted some shit about Mike Pence, they started chanting "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" and demanding Mike Pence be brought out. When he told them to go home, they went home. I'm not sure what else you want as evidence that he was controlling and directing them. 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. Well, not "may have" - to be clear, they definitely did, and this is well documented. Second, if saying 5 people died was misleading, then saying the mob was unarmed when you yourself admit that they had weapons is definitely misleading. But it was not a mob armed with guns and intent to use them. 3 people were charged with firearm possession. I mean, sure, it's not as if they all marched down there wearing ballistic plates and brandishing M4s shouting "We're going to shoot Pence!" But they weren't just peacefully assembling outside either. They broke into the building, carrying weapons, and caused millions of dollars in property damage, all in the hopes of getting the election overturned. Do you acknowledge that that is the case? |
Follow ups: