Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

So you can't explain why you disagree about his intent with people that actually know him and are in a position to say? You have no justification for why you think you know something?

It sounds to me like you are 0% interested in facts and 100% certain about outcomes and meanings. There's an easy-to-spot problem with that.

You claimed that you know for sure how people that know him felt. I called bullshit. You haven't backed up your claim. It is not on me to disprove your statement, because you haven't proved it to begin with.


you can't DISprove something yet to be proved (proven?).

[AlabamAlum]

you can't DISprove something yet to be proved.

Sure you can. Unless you're trying to base this off of pure semantics. The act of falsification is often stated as disproving the hypothesis.

You're making Karl Popper weep.

[Kapture1]

Sure you can. Unless you're trying to base this off of pure semantics. The act of falsification is often stated as disproving the hypothesis.

You're making Karl Popper weep.

fine. I respectfully await evidence of his claim. I will not bother with attempting to prove him wrong by guessing what is in the heads of those that know Milo.

[Kapture1]

[Kapture1]

[AlabamAlum]

I can respect that tack. He has the onus of responsibility to support his claim.

[Dr. Strangelove]

no one that I know of is pushing for an outright ban of trucks. your analogy is deeply flawed.



how about a merit based system? Like Canada?

His point, and I'd agree with it, is that if you've ever whined about Dems 'politicizing tragedy' or 'letting no tragedy go to waste', don't immediately demand changes to the immigration system in the wake of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I don't have a problem with advocating policy changes in the wake of a disaster/tragedy. It isn't a Saul Alinsky tactic; it isn't a prog thing; it isn't a conservative thing. IMO, Most people demanding silence for some indeterminate length of time out of 'respect' cynically want the conversation to just go away.

[hack]

You claimed that you know for sure how people that know him felt. I called bullshit. You haven't backed up your claim. It is not on me to disprove your statement, because you haven't proved it to begin with.


you can't DISprove something yet to be proved (proven?).

But I'm not making any claim of anything. I'm stating two facts.

1. Milo said what he said and as a result he got fired and lost his book deal. That's a fact.

2. The people who did that to him actually know the guy, unlike you. Also a fact.

Given these two facts, I asked you a question -- how do YOU know he was joking?

There is no claim that I'm making. And I'm not trying to change your mind. You and I disagree and that won't change. But I am trying to understand how you can continue to be this certain about things even when all the facts available suggests you shouldn't be. With Geezer, I get it. His opinion is grounded in political theory he's read and understands very well, but he hasn't chosen to see how it applies in reality, beyond the pages of the books he's read or beyond how it impacts his desires to do things regardless of how they impact others.

With you, I just don't understand why you think you know what you claim to know. You know you're getting your information from sites that have a track record of spreading falsehoods to yank people's chains. You know you're reading pictures of headlines, and not the actual newspaper stories. You know you're not actually looking at the scholarship of the academics, but you still think you can read their minds and extrapolate. On what basis do you grant yourself these entitlements to assume a whole load of stuff that contradicts reality?

[Kapture1]

His point, and I'd agree with it, is that if you've ever whined about Dems 'politicizing tragedy' or 'letting no tragedy go to waste', don't immediately demand changes to the immigration system in the wake of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I don't have a problem with advocating policy changes in the wake of a disaster/tragedy. It isn't a Saul Alinsky tactic; it isn't a prog thing; it isn't a conservative thing. IMO, Most people demanding silence for some indeterminate length of time out of 'respect' cynically want the conversation to just go away.

I know what he is saying.

Still a bad comparison. Ability to own guns is a fundamental constitutional right. The left wants to ban guns. There is no fundamental constitutional right to come here.

I think that the decision to ban a fundamental constitutional right needs not to be a knee jerk reaction. I would say the same thing about encroachment on the 4th amendment after incidents like these.

[Kapture1]

But I'm not making any claim of anything. I'm stating two facts.

1. Milo said what he said and as a result he got fired and lost his book deal. That's a fact.

2. The people who did that to him actually know the guy, unlike you. Also a fact.

Given these two facts, I asked you a question -- how do YOU know he was joking?

There is no claim that I'm making. And I'm not trying to change your mind. You and I disagree and that won't change. But I am trying to understand how you can continue to be this certain about things even when all the facts available suggests you shouldn't be. With Geezer, I get it. His opinion is grounded in political theory he's read and understands very well, but he hasn't chosen to see how it applies in reality, beyond the pages of the books he's read or beyond how it impacts his desires to do things regardless of how they impact others.

With you, I just don't understand why you think you know what you claim to know. You know you're getting your information from sites that have a track record of spreading falsehoods to yank people's chains. You know you're reading pictures of headlines, and not the actual newspaper stories. You know you're not actually looking at the scholarship of the academics, but you still think you can read their minds and extrapolate. On what basis do you grant yourself these entitlements to assume a whole load of stuff that contradicts reality?

1. correct
2. also correct that the people who fired him know him.



Would it be possible to be fired for saying something dumb? Say you boss has known you for years, and personally too, outside the office. Say you go on facebook and make a dumb statement, or took a joke too far and brought a ton of negative press on your employer. Would it be possible for you boss to fire you, even though he knows the type of person you are and know you don't believe the things you said?

If your answer is YES it is possible, and you don't know specifics from anyone that knows Milo, then I suggest you are taking a leap of faith in knowing what is in people's minds.

[iam416]

His point, and I'd agree with it, is that if you've ever whined about Dems 'politicizing tragedy' or 'letting no tragedy go to waste', don't immediately demand changes to the immigration system in the wake of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I don't have a problem with advocating policy changes in the wake of a disaster/tragedy. It isn't a Saul Alinsky tactic; it isn't a prog thing; it isn't a conservative thing. IMO, Most people demanding silence for some indeterminate length of time out of 'respect' cynically want the conversation to just go away.

Correct, though I disagree with use of a tragedy to advocate policy changes. Fundamentally a tragedy is an outlier event and policy ought not be dictated by outlier events.

Also, I saw the "Truck Ad" they ran against Gillepsie earlier this week -- on Monday, I think -- I can't believe they ran that. That's right up there with the great Helms ad of, I think, 1986.

[hack]

Oh, OK -- so you can look at a picture of some newspaper headlines, think you know what some academics REALLY believe, and then think you know what a third to a half of the country believes about a political issue. On the other hand I can't infer anything at all after a newsroom full of Breitbart folks demand his firing because of those comments, and after a publisher puts out a statement as a direct response. I don't need to make a leap of faith about what's in people's minds. They told us what's on their minds. I'm stating facts.

That's one hell of a double-standard. You grant yourself extraordinary leeway to ignore facts. That redirects us right back to the question am asking you. Why do you think you are so entitled to ignore facts and make assumptions?

[Kapture1]

Oh, OK -- so you can look at a picture of some newspaper headlines, think you know what some academics REALLY believe, and then think you know what a third to a half of the country believes about a political issue. On the other hand I can't infer anything at all after a newsroom full of Breitbart folks demand his firing because of those comments, and after a publisher puts out a statement as a direct response. I don't need to make a leap of faith about what's in people's minds. They told us what's on their minds. I'm stating facts.

That's one hell of a double-standard. You grant yourself extraordinary leeway to ignore facts. That redirects us right back to the question am asking you. Why do you think you are so entitled to ignore facts and make assumptions?

Well, the simple answer to that is the media is actually conveying a message (duh). I am not reading their minds, I am reading their thoughts and opinions that they actually put on paper. You on the other hand are pretending to know what people think, which isn't the same thing.

I will admit I am calling it propaganda (which it is) because the media has a bias. They have an agenda. For example, why did CBS make the terrorist look like a bearded white guy?





why did the deliberately do this? Bias. Agenda. Propaganda.


try again.

[hack]

How am I pretending to know what people think? They were clear. Milo said what he said and an entire newsroom of Breitbart people told us what they think about it. I'm not pretending to know. I'm simply restating facts, as proved by reality. Milo said something so awful that EVEN BREITBART PEOPLE decided they couldn't work with him anymore. I don't have to pretend to know anything. I am restating the facts.

Which, again, leads right back to the thing I wonder about you. Every single thing you've said here makes me further wonder -- how it is that you think you know things? What entitles you to ignore facts and think you can read Milo's mind and have a better understanding of him than the people that actually know him?

[Kapture1]

Yeah but we can deal with facts. I have no idea if CBS doctored a photo or if this is just the fabricated bait du jour that people like you will always take.

But how am I pretending to know what people think? They were clear. Milo said what he said and an entire newsroom of Breitbart people told us what they think about it. I'm not pretending to know. I'm simply restating facts, as proved by reality. Milo said something so awful that EVEN BREITBART PEOPLE decided they couldn't work with him anymore. I don't have to pretend to know anything. I am restating the facts.

Which, again, leads right back to the thing I wonder about you. Every single thing you've said here makes me further wonder -- how it is that you think you know things? What entitles you to ignore facts and think you can read Milo's mind and have a better understanding of him than the people that actually know him?

Do you know for a fact that those within Breitbart calling for dismissal even knew Milo? I mean you do know that he worked for Breitbart London for a long while before coming here to the US, right? Then he did his college roadshow, I don't think he spent much time in the office.... so the folks here that wanted him fired, you know that they and Milo had a close relationship? Or by the phraseology that you used "THOSE CLOSE TO HIM" was more geographical proximity rather than personal closeness?

the assertion that you are making are those close to him (meaning friends and long time colleges that know him personally) when I don't think you even know the names of the people that were calling for his firing, let alone their level of relationship with him.