Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 10:19:21 GMT
BS ^
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 10:21:39 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear
' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'
They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts
|
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Aug 2, 2024 10:33:18 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear ' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts IMO the above is clearly an opinion. Surely anytime you say someone hates someone else it is an opinion because I can't see anyway it can be proved a fact to anyone's satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 2, 2024 10:35:19 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear ' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts I explained in my previous post. If you are unable to make the basic epistemological distinction between what another person might or can observe as a fact, and what they can only theorise or surmise, then you have a condition of some sort. Children can do this reasonably well at 11 year's old |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 10:52:38 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear ' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts IMO the above is clearly an opinion. Surely anytime you say someone hates someone else it is an opinion because I can't see anyway it can be proved a fact to anyone's satisfaction. It's a clear assertion of supposed fact.. Just because the author is a known publisher of utter bollocks doesn't change that he was intending the readers to believe those statements as true. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 10:54:32 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear ' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts I explained in my previous post. If you are unable to make the basic epistemological distinction between what another person might or can observe as a fact, and what they can only theorise or surmise, then you have a condition of some sort. Children can do this reasonably well at 11 year's old Oh look Orac is pursuing the slagging off tactic again. Very poor form |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 2, 2024 11:10:29 GMT
So people have more sympathy with BLM because of the police actions leading up to the attacks. You are mixing two things up here. Having sympathy with one side or the other and judging their actions If you judge the actions of actors using different standards, then your sympathy for one side or the other, which should clearly depend on their actions is hideously suspect. Another way to put it is you have a circularity - You have more sympathy for the actions of one side because you have more sympathy for them - and - You have more sympathy for one side because you have more sympathy for their actions. Given these assumption - that this group is somewhat justified in assaulting the police - it is very easy to see how you would come to the conclusion that the police were acting unfairly - ie they get justly assaulted' and react 'in an unjustified way against that just assault. Do you see? Given your position, how would you argue with someone who minimised the assaults on the police in Southport because he had sympathy with the claims and grievances of the people making the attacks? To put it more succinctly, you are simply accepting my accusation of hypocrisy I totally disagree. Actions people take are entirely judged on the reasons for those actions and sympathy follows on from that. Whether there is justification in assaulting the police depends on the reasons. If two members of the public watched a policeman strangling a young child and attacked him I can easily define that from two members of the public attacking a police officer because he's arresting a mate. Are you saying you can't tell the difference? Some things are harder to call, but not in this case you present. Why? Because A, the protesters should not have been there at all on a day following the murder of these children. B, They were there based on false information fed to them on social media and attacked a Mosque for no reason. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 11:14:29 GMT
The other aspect of this is whether this government has the guts to fine/ban Twitter and/or Facebook etc for hosting fake news and posts inciting violence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 2, 2024 11:14:50 GMT
Perhaps Orac can show us all where in this statement by his source the words 'in my opinion' or similar appear ' . .Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to what happened in Leeds which was the rioting in leads which she was relatively calm and the rioting in Southport which had a much more egregious cause during which she was extremely angry of course she was extremely angry the people who were rioting in leads were were foreigners were Roman EG Gypsy and she likes those whereas the people who were rioting in Southport were white Working Class People and she hates those .'They don't because it's all assertion of supposed facts I would say that anyone claiming to know another's thoughts is giving an opinion. He is reading Coopers emotions as he sees them. That said, I would claim he is deliberately mis reading them to play to his audiences bias. |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Aug 2, 2024 11:15:10 GMT
IMO the above is clearly an opinion. Surely anytime you say someone hates someone else it is an opinion because I can't see anyway it can be proved a fact to anyone's satisfaction. It's a clear assertion of supposed fact.. Just because the author is a known publisher of utter bollocks doesn't change that he was intending the readers to believe those statements as true. What is a supposed fact? |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 2, 2024 11:20:39 GMT
Any statement of reality not accompanied by a disclaimer or caveat
Just like that ^ was
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 2, 2024 11:23:05 GMT
You are mixing two things up here. Having sympathy with one side or the other and judging their actions If you judge the actions of actors using different standards, then your sympathy for one side or the other, which should clearly depend on their actions is hideously suspect. Another way to put it is you have a circularity - You have more sympathy for the actions of one side because you have more sympathy for them - and - You have more sympathy for one side because you have more sympathy for their actions. Given these assumption - that this group is somewhat justified in assaulting the police - it is very easy to see how you would come to the conclusion that the police were acting unfairly - ie they get justly assaulted' and react 'in an unjustified way against that just assault. Do you see? Given your position, how would you argue with someone who minimised the assaults on the police in Southport because he had sympathy with the claims and grievances of the people making the attacks? To put it more succinctly, you are simply accepting my accusation of hypocrisy If two members of the public watched a policeman strangling a young child and attacked him I can easily define that from two members of the public attacking a police officer because he's arresting a mate. Are you saying you can't tell the difference? All you have done here is to cite a non controversial example of injustice (ie strangling a child) and used at as an analogy for your political opinions. My political opinions are so true and inarguable, that violence used on their behalf is somewhat justified
Ironically, this is just another way to describe the mixup I am accusing of - it is a dimension of the hypocrisy i'm accusing you of.The reason this sort of totalising thinking is dangerous is because no reasonable compromise cannot be made with people who disagree with your political opinions |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Aug 2, 2024 11:30:01 GMT
Any statement of reality not accompanied by a disclaimer or caveat Just like that ^ was It's a good definition but I don't think that definition can be reasonably applied to anyone stating what amothers motivations are. To my mind you are applying an unrealistic standard to communication although as it is written and disseminated using YouTube I can see where you are coming from. It's interesting and I'll bear it in mind moving forward. I think if I challenged every supposed fact in real life I would rapidly run out of friends and I don't have that many to spare to start with. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 2, 2024 11:46:04 GMT
Any statement of reality not accompanied by a disclaimer or caveat Just like that ^ was Anyone giving an opinion is hoping the audience will believe them. No one gives an opinion hoping the audience wont believe them. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 2, 2024 11:50:51 GMT
I explained in my previous post. If you are unable to make the basic epistemological distinction between what another person might or can observe as a fact, and what they can only theorise or surmise, then you have a condition of some sort. Children can do this reasonably well at 11 year's old Oh look Orac is pursuing the slagging off tactic again. Very poor form I would say its frustration of your stubborn position Steve. That you are immoveable on this leads to no other collusion than that you have not this basic ability. You could easily argue they were trying to mislead, but saying they claimed their observation was a fact is seen as wrong by all the posters who have responded. |
|
