Which is why I said it was my mistake there mindfu.
Well, that’s not really what you did. What you did was say that you “overestimated” the audience, which is blaming the audience.
But in any case, if you are agreeing with me about larger matters then that’s what’s important. Best.
I think you have an odd definition of “know” if you think that that guy, and I, and everyone else here know that Weinstein sexually abused many people over many years.
Maybe I’m missing your idea of the flow of causality here. IF we accept a guy slapping Weinstein THEN someone will shoot up a pizza parlor last year?
That’s obviously me being facetious, but I’m making a real point here. Are you trying to argue that if we are careful not to condone slapping Weinstein it will have some ripple effect that will change whether lunatics listening to Alex Jones take Alex Jones conspiracies into their own hands? I don’t think there is any slippery slope running in any direction there. The guy who got a gun and went to solve pizzagate was not sufficiently connected to reality as I know it to be influenced by anything I do.
The things you are saying will happen for certain if we feel like it’s okay that this guy slapped Weinstein will happen for certain if we don’t feel like it’s okay that this guy slapped Weinstein. I don’t have a policy of strangers physically attacking people based on news reports because my “policy” on that wouldn’t matter. I don’t personally do it. Our society does have a policy on that, it’s a criminal law against assault. That law is in effect and hasn’t been suspended.
But if the question is, should this guy have slapped Weinstein, I’d say for his own sake I think he probably shouldn’t have since assaulting people who have more money than you is a potentially very bad decision.
For Weinstein’s sake? I don’t feel a bit bad about Weinstein getting slapped, and I don’t think that Alex Jones’ listeners would be interested if I did.
Exactly. Sobriety is the word. Now who can we pour gall over for messing up the English language?
Thanks for that fun idea. Made me chuckle. However, he never left Königsberg, either. I wager he didn’t think everyone should live there, or rather: never leave home.
That’s a hell of a condemning assumption. And a bit dichotomous.
Wr discussed fascists tendencies of post-modern media in class, a long, long time ago, on the example of some films. A certain Harry always caused some trouble, for some reason.
Seriously, I see where you are coming from, and it’s fun to follow your argument. You do argue eloquently, and logically. But I don’t come to the same conclusions.
That may just be the most affable, courteous and diplomatic expression of disagreement that I’ve seen thus far on the BBS; kudos
To clarify I meant those to be two of many possibilities that demonstrate the extremely different ways people might read the same words.
Whenever someone brings up a classic philosopher I try to say something inflammatory about them. It would seem like a waste of all those years studying philosophy if I couldn’t have any fun with it now.
(Not saying I didn’t mean what I said, I can be fun and be right!)
“Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable”
Well, my philosophical take on the topic would be: this is the sound of one hand clapping.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
