Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
Phrasing your question this way maybe does make a point, but it's a cheap one that is generally irrelevant.
They crossed the unacceptable line from protester to violent criminal.
Hopefully, they can be identified and fully prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.
99+ percent of protesters don't approve of this. I could go on....
.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducbutter
Not cheap or irrelevant, just inconvenient for your argument.
True
True
That's clearly not true. You can go on all you like.
|
I was hoping that you would not prove to be like this, that you were perhaps a bit more neutral and would also be more careful when you make your refutations. I'm starting to think that those hopes were premature.
But I can do this too...
1) Cheap and irrelevant was my opinion. Inconvenient is yours. But you seemingly add fuel to a thread that was started as a dog-whistle to encourage MAGA rhetoric (in my opinion, of course!). "Inconvenient" implies that it somehow casts doubt on my argument that the majority of people... even the Left... do not support violence. And it would do so... if you could actually demonstrate relevance (see #4 below).
2) At least we agree on the important stuff.
3) Ditto.
4) While I do not have published statistics to back up my claims to an absolute, mere common sense says that they are generally accurate.
I offer one simple observation: in the VAST majority of recent protests, there was no violence whatsoever. The "No Kings" protests were estimated by some sources as drawing
5 MILLION people, with little reported violence. Meanwhile, this thread has focused on a relatively small number and has been used by some to misrepresent the reality. You should examine whether you have been sucked into that also. "Clearly not true" implies more than opinion. Backing that up could be challenging.
.
