Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
You missed my point. I'm not talking about whether the protesters are rioting, or marching, or wearing tutus. I'm talking about logic. I'm talking about a person, persons, or corporation, viewing the actions of X% of a given group, as something that has to be addressed. If the results of the marches, riots, yadda, in Ferguson, are something like a major change to the Grand Jury system, nationwide, OR, cameras on cops, OR, any other systemic change, then ALL the cops will be affected by (arguably) the actions of a few. THAT was my point.
Not whether or not a riot is the same thing as a march. It boggles me that anyone would read what I wrote and think that this was the argument I was making. It's a LOGIC ARGUMENT.
...
I'm surprised, in fact, that you would think that I would make any such argument. I'm not talking about whether or not rioting, versus marching, is legal or not. I'm simply talking about the LOGIC. Because, while one is hopelessly emotionally-charged, the situations are the SAME. The sets, subsets, actions thereupon, etc., are identical.
Speaking of making one's point: you've made mine. You became so instantly distressed when I mentioned the protests that you misread my post, and attributed to ME actions, discussions, intent, etc., that I never said. Nor implied. Not even REMOTELY. I didn't equate "rioting" with marching. I was simply talking about the LOGIC, which, it seems, was utterly lost in the aether.
|
I am still trying to figure out who said anything about Ferguson before you, that you think you caught them in a contradiction (going back to your first post on the matter).
Regardless -- they have every right to
protest, and do all that is in their (legal) power to pin the blame on all cops. Not because they have an intrinsic right to blame all for the actions of the few (which they actually aren't saying at all) but because as taustin said, they have a special constitutional override that allows peaceful protest regardless, so you cannot bring anything from there.
Whether they have a right to blame all cops under the idea of blaming all for the actions of the few, is an entirely separate issue and bringing in Ferguson adds no relevance whatsoever (because that isn't what Ferguson is about).
And again, they are actually saying that all cops are complicit in the matter, so it's a rather funny proof to bring. (Actually, maybe not. You could and did say the same thing about Amzon employees, right?
)
It might be better if you brought a logical argument that was logical as opposed to covered in a haze of emotions...
Instead
you lost yourself utterly in the aether.
Note: Your original post was far more confusing, and you seemed to assume everyone else would instantly know exactly what was going through your mind when you referenced a highly emotional issue in a logical argument without any explanation.