Originally posted by Robtard
Which should tell you that Rocky isn't saying Bush is a war criminal, you dummy. Keep doing flips, it's hilarious.
Why not just say he isn't a war criminal? Why is the word "literally" needed? Makes no sense lol.
Are you going to try to say this wasn't meant to convey the message he is like a war criminal?
Because if he's not then..the professors tweets were not accurate lol. And yet the entire basis for his comment boiled down to "yeah, she got it right".
You could use some help, Surtur. You suck at this, sometimes.
Originally posted by Surtur
Actually he said Bush isn't a literal war criminal. Which implies he is in some way a war criminal.
Correct, that would be a fair and logical interpretation of his words. This is called implicity.
This is when you state something and a very simple logical implication can be understood.
The implicit understanding from his words are something like:
"He's not literally a war criminal probably because he gets around the legalities of getting convicted of it. However, the things he did should be considered warcrimes because they were terrible."
And since we know Rocky quite well, he's all about those technicalities when it comes to WMDs. So, technically, Bush did not commit war crimes. Technically. But he's a war criminal.
Kind of like this:
"Technically, we found WMDs in Iraq, Technically. But we didn't really find WMDs in Iraq."
See how implicity works? Now, don't let linguistic sophistry muddy up the water. This is simple stuff now matter how fancy they try to spin things.
Rocky thinks Bush is a war-criminal but gets away with being convicted on legal technicalities.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Did Rocky just go: "Maybe someone wants to address it rather than avoid shit that makes them uncomfortable" while completely glossing over my question which is directly below the very comment of his that he reposted?
I didn't see your post. My bad. I shouldn't have accused all the posters in thread.
Meaningful? In what way and in what context? Pls elaborate.
1) Bush being factually a war criminal.
Bush wasn't literally a war criminal but his greed for iraqi oil led to the death of 288,000 people.
Technically speaking, Bush did not commit war crimes, but beyond technicality he instigated a war on lacking evidence that led to the death of thousands of people. The professor used "war criminal" to make a point, one which I find to be accurate.
2) Barbara Bush was an "amazing racist".
I'll need to research if it's fair for bush to be called a racist
So are you now saying that it is now ok to attack parents for the sins of their children?
A parent bears part of the responsibility for their child. That's the price of giving birth.
Furthermore, there's a misconception that giving birth is an act of selflessness. It is not. When you have a child, you have it for your own fulfillment. If you want the perks of parenthood, you have to face the responsibility that comes along with it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You could use some help, Surtur. You suck at this, sometimes.Correct, that would be a fair and logical interpretation of his words. This is called implicity.
This is when you state something and a very simple logical implication can be understood.
The implicit understanding from his words are something like:
"He's not literally a war criminal probably because he gets around the legalities of getting convicted of it. However, the things he did should be considered warcrimes because they were terrible."
And since we know Rocky quite well, he's all about those technicalities when it comes to WMDs. So, technically, Bush did not commit war crimes. Technically. But he's a war criminal.
Kind of like this:
"Technically, we found WMDs in Iraq, Technically. But we didn't really find WMDs in Iraq."
See how implicity works? Now, don't let linguistic sophistry muddy up the water. This is simple stuff now matter how fancy they try to spin things.
Rocky thinks Bush is a war-criminal but gets away with being convicted on legal technicalities.
Get your logic out of here!
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I didn't see your post. My bad. I shouldn't have accused all the posters in thread.It's meaningful in the context of how we remember history. I edited my comment to potentially meaningfulbecause I realized I don't have the info to judge the accuracy of the claim that Bush was racist.
Read again:
Technically speaking, Bush did not commit war crimes, but beyond technicality he instigated a war on lacking evidence that led to the death of thousands of people. The professor used "war criminal" to make a point, one which I find to be accurate.
I edited my post because I remembered the other accusation the teacher made:
They don't burden all of the responsibility, but they do bear some of it. It's a parent's duty to raise a child well and how a parent raises a child helps determine how the child ends up. Parents also supply children with their own genetics which again, helps determine how a child ends up.
A parent bears part of the responsibility for their child. That's the price of giving birth.
Furthermore, there's a misconception that giving birth is an act of selflessness. It is not. When you have a child, you have it for your own fulfillment. If you want the perks of parenthood, you have to face the responsibility that comes along with it.
"Meaningful" in the context of "of how we remember history" whereas she called Bush a racist (something you have not proven) and her son a war criminal (which is not true by your own admission even tho you want him to be). The rest is her gloating (in her other posts) over the death of an old lady and the grief of her family? So tell me, where's the "meaningful"-ness you are talking about?
And don't go "read again" on me. Maybe YOU should read again (because I certainly do). You EDITED your comment after I replied to it. Removing "accurate" w/c is the foundation of my point as she accused Bush of being a war criminal as you just called her post "accurate" pre-edit. Maybe you should think a bit before trying to correct someone else.
And seriously, Let me post some more of the things she said:
“I’m happy the witch is dead.”
“Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeee.”
“All the hate I’m getting ALMOST made me forget how happy I am that George W. Bush is probably really sad right now.”
Sources:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fresno-state-professor-fire-celebrating-death-barbara-bush-194657051.html
So, again, you're going to have to thoroughly explain to me how gloating over the death of someone's mother/wife, finding joy in a grieving son's sadness and wishing a grieving family death is somehow (in your own words) "meaningful"?
And NO, a parent is NOT responsible for her children's actions. A person is responsible for their own actions (unless they are kids). Unless said parent DIRECTLY contributed to his/her children's actions (or they brainwashed their kids or their kids are mentally incapable of making their own choices) they share NO blame. Because people have this thing called free will. Collective responsibility is stupid.
Edit. meant to say "her son" as the one she called a "war criminal". Corrected typos also.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
"Meaningful" in the context of "of how we remember history" whereas she called Bush a racist (something you have not proven) and her son a war criminal (which is not true by your own admission even tho you want him to be). The rest is her gloating (in her other posts) over the death of an old lady and the grief of her family? So tell me, where's the "meaningful"-ness you are talking about?And don't go "read again" on me. Maybe YOU should read again (because I certainly do). You EDITED your comment after I replied to it. Removing "accurate" w/c is the foundation of my point as she accused Bush of being a war criminal as you just called her post "accurate" pre-edit. Maybe you should think a bit before trying to correct someone else.
And seriously, Let me post some more of the things she said:
“I’m happy the witch is dead.”
“Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeee.”
“All the hate I’m getting ALMOST made me forget how happy I am that George W. Bush is probably really sad right now.”Sources:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fresno-state-professor-fire-celebrating-death-barbara-bush-194657051.html
So, again, you're going to have to thoroughly explain to me how gloating over the death of someone's mother/wife, finding joy in a grieving son's sadness and wishing a grieving family death is somehow (in your own words) "meaningful"?
And NO, a parent is NOT responsible for her children's actions. A person is responsible for their own actions (unless they are kids). Unless said parent DIRECTLY contributed to his/her children's actions (or they brainwashed their kids or their kids are mentally incapable of making their own choices) they share NO blame. Because people have this thing called free will. Collective responsibility is stupid.
Edit. meant to say "her son" as the one she called a "war criminal". Corrected typos also.
The truly baffling thing is he tried to essentially justify what she said by saying this prof was holding the Bush family "accountable". Labeling Bush a war criminal is the exact opposite of holding one accountable since you can't be held accountable for something that isn't actually true. It's like saying calling Trump Hitler is an example of holding him "accountable".
She doesn't deserve to be fired, though it would be funny if she did because she touted her tenure as why she couldn't be which means she doesn't even understand what tenure is. However, there is no real justification for what she said. It was the ramblings of a lunatic.
For a side that tends to say words matter they sure do misuse them(or phrases) a lot. "Nazi" or "racist" or "fascist" or "alt right" or "sexist". I guess now we add "war criminal". But don't war, not a LITERAL war criminal. Figurative. Duh.
And don't go "read again" on me. Maybe YOU should read again (because I certainly do). You EDITED your comment after I replied to it.Sorry fam, but the literal war criminal was part of the original comment which means you implying i said he was "factually a war criminal" qualifies as strawmanning me. The only reason I edited out accurate was because of the accusation of "racism" which I don't know enough to assess. Coincidentally I haven't told you to "read again" on parts of your response which addressed things I said pre edit.
So, again, you're going to have to thoroughly explain to me how gloating over the death of someone's mother/wife, finding joy in a grieving son's sadness and wishing a grieving family death is somehow (in your own words) "meaningful"
in the context of "of how we remember history"
Because people have this thing called free will.And I'm sure you can prove to me the existence of free will as you've defined it. If you can't, then I'm not going to be taking it into account. As to our knowledge, free will as you're defining it, decisions being made outside of what are genetics and upbringing have made us, doesn't exist.
If you can give me proof of people making decisions independent of genetics, upbringing, and environment, I'll happily reconsider.
But as you claim "free will" exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it does.
“I’m happy the witch is dead.â€
“Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeee.â€
“All the hate I’m getting ALMOST made me forget how happy I am that George W. Bush is probably really sad right now
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) Sorry fam, but the literal war criminal was part of the original comment which means you implying i said he was "factually a war criminal" qualifies as strawmanning me.2) The only reason I edited out accurate was because of the accusation of "racism" which I don't know enough to assess. Coincidentally I haven't told you to "read again" on parts of your response which addressed things I said pre edit.
3) I already told you:
And while it's certainly not fair for me to criticize you for using my original comment as a basis in your original reply, now that you've been informed i revised my comment, to not acknowledge the edits I've made is also just straw-manning.
4) And I'm sure you can prove to me the existence of free will as you've defined it. If you can't, then I'm not going to be taking it into account. As to our knowledge, free will as you're defining it, decisions being made outside of what are genetics and upbringing have made us, doesn't exist.
If you can give me proof of people making decisions independent of genetics, upbringing, and environment, I'll happily reconsider.
But as you claim "free will" exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it does.
Brutal, but she clearly has her reasons, and you've yet to contest those reasons.
1) Seriously, man. All due respect, don't be stupid. You mentioned the historical relevance of her comment due to its accuracy (pre-edit). Ergo, her comment of "war crime" being accurate. And she only made 2 provable claims in her statement (one being racism and the other, war crimes). Doesn't matter if you contradicted yourself later via "well not literally". I mean what does that even mean!? A statement can't both be "accurate" and "not literal" (unless of course the statement has "not literally" on it as well) at the same time.
Here. Let me break it down. Where x = bush, y = racist and z = she raised bush jr who is a war criminal, her statement was: x = y+z. NOT x = y+ not literally z. And you claimed her statement is accurate (pre-edit). Ergo you claimed it accurate at: x = y + z.
Thus your statement of accuracy was wrong. And simply ran contradictory to your "not literally" statement.
Read your OWN comments brah, your logic is all over the place.
2) So you claimed the historical "accuracy" (pre-edit) of something even though you didn't check the validity of one claim and while knowing that the other is actually inaccurate?
I see.
3) Sorry, but you need to learn how logic works. You cannot claim an unproven statement and an inaccurate statement (while trying to excuse it as "not literal"😉 then claim "accuracy" (or "meaningful" for that matter).
And no, I do not need to acknowledge your edits at this point of my replies because our current point of contention is your comment of "pls reread". Whereas my reply where that contention arose was founded on your statements pre-edit. Again. Think.
I will, however, address your post-edit statements starting here:
4) I noticed you seemed to have glossed over me asking you to explaining your "meaningful"-ness argument. Underlined for emphasis as I can't find anything in your argument that addresses it.
5) So, now you INSIST that a parent should be blamed for the sins of her children (via determinism) while shifting the burden of proof onto me even tho 1) you were the one originally pushing the validity (or "meaningful"-ness, so you say) of her argument (Pft. Asking me to disprove philosophical theory, nice try. Not really.), 2) Our society judges the individual via our laws, not their parents. Ergo I don't have to prove anything, as it (free will and individual responsibility, with some caveats of course) already objectively exists as a standard in our society for assigning responsibility. It doesn't matter what you want to think. 3) Even if we USE your determinism argument, it still ISNT HER FAULT. Because no free will = no fault. As how can she be responsible for anything she has no control over?
Again your logic = contradictory to each other.
6) Wait, am I supposed to contest her "reasons" for publicly attacking a dead old lady/wife/mother while laughing at the grief of her son and wishing death on her grieving family? Really?
Are are you taking crazy pills or something?
Sure, she has her reasons: she is a hateful little troll. And no, I don't have to "contest" whatever else "reasons" you think she has. As 1) You can't even claim "meaning" as her statements are objectively unproven or flat out wrong or simply subjective. She needs to prove her statement is valid FIRST before we can even go to whether her reasons are even justifiable, and 2) I can simply judge her via her actions. Which are deplorable.
She's about the same level of vile as the Westboro baptist church lunatics picketing dead soldiers as their families grieve during their funerals, calling them murderers, because, well, if you think about it, it IS accurate to call a soldier who fought in a war a "murderer" (well, not literally. See what i did there?). <-- I'm sure they have their "reasons", too. And we need to make sure we are historically "truth"-full, amirite?
The only difference between them and her is that she's most likely too tech savvy, fat and lazy to do that so instead she uses twitter.
DDM is right, you are a partisan piece.
Huh. Westborocky leftist church. Must be a new one.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Seriously, man. All due respect, don't be stupid. You mentioned the historical relevance of her comment due to its accuracy (pre-edit). Ergo, her comment of "war crime" being accurate. And she only made 2 provable claims in her statement (one being racism and the other, war crimes). Doesn't matter if you contradicted yourself later via "well not literally". I mean what does that even mean!? A statement can't both be "accurate" and "not literal" (unless of course the statement has "not literally" on it as well) at the same time.Here. Let me break it down. Where x = bush, y = racist and z = she raised bush jr who is a war criminal, her statement was: x = y+z. NOT x = y+ not literally z. And you claimed her statement is accurate (pre-edit). Ergo you claimed it accurate at: x = y + z.
Thus your statement of accuracy was wrong. And simply ran contradictory to your "not literally" statement.
Read your OWN comments brah, your logic is all over the place.
2) So you claimed the historical "accuracy" (pre-edit) of something even though you didn't check the validity of one claim and while knowing that the other is actually inaccurate?
I see.
3) Sorry, but you need to learn how logic works. You cannot claim an unproven statement and an inaccurate statement (while trying to excuse it as "not literal"😉 then claim "accuracy" (or "meaningful" for that matter).
And no, I do not need to acknowledge your edits at this point of my replies because our current point of contention is your comment of "pls reread". Whereas my reply where that contention arose was founded on your statements pre-edit. Again. Think.
I will, however, address your post-edit statements starting here:
4) I noticed you seemed to have glossed over me asking you to explaining your "meaningful"-ness argument. Underlined for emphasis as I can't find anything in your argument that addresses it.
5) So, now you INSIST that a parent should be blamed for the sins of her children (via determinism) while shifting the burden of proof onto me even tho 1) you were the one originally pushing the validity (or "meaningful"-ness, so you say) of her argument (Pft. Asking me to disprove philosophical theory, nice try. Not really.), 2) Our society judges the individual via our laws, not their parents. Ergo I don't have to prove anything, as it (free will and individual responsibility, with some caveats of course) already objectively exists as a standard in our society for assigning responsibility. It doesn't matter what you want to think. 3) Even if we USE your determinism argument, it still ISNT HER FAULT. Because no free will = no fault. As how can she be responsible for anything she has no control over?
Again your logic = contradictory to each other.
6) Wait, am I supposed to contest her "reasons" for publicly attacking a dead old lady/wife/mother while laughing at the grief of her son and wishing death on her grieving family? Really?
Are are you taking crazy pills or something?
Sure, she has her reasons: she is a hateful little troll. And no, I don't have to "contest" whatever else "reasons" you think she has. As 1) You can't even claim "meaning" as her statements are objectively unproven or flat out wrong or simply subjective. She needs to prove her statement is valid FIRST before we can even go to whether her reasons are even justifiable, and 2) I can simply judge her via her actions. Which are deplorable.
She's about the same level of vile as the Westboro baptist church lunatics picketing dead soldiers as their families grieve during their funerals, calling them murderers, because, well, if you think about it, it IS accurate to call a soldier who fought in a war a "murderer" (well, not literally. See what i did there?). <-- I'm sure they have their "reasons", too. And we need to make sure we are historically "truth"-full, amirite?
The only difference between them and her is that she's most likely too tech savvy, fat and lazy to do that so instead she uses twitter.
DDM is right, you are a partisan piece.
Huh. Westborocky leftist church. Must be a new one.
LOL remember: Bush isn't a war criminal, but calling him a war criminal is totally accurate. Logic!
DDM is right, you are a partisan piece.Huh. Westborocky leftist church. Must be a new one.
) I mean what does that even mean!? A statement can't both be "accurate" and "not literal".
Calling Bush a war criminal is an example of
https://literarydevices.net/figurative-language/
Figurative language uses figures of speech to be more effective, persuasive, and impactful.
go beyond the literal meanings of words. Bush may not, technically be a war criminal. But instigating a conflict that kills thousands of people is worthy of being considered a war crime. It dangerous to use literal definitions as strictly as you are because these technicalities are used by powerful people to prevent themselves from being held accountable. Has the UN went along with Obama killing people with drones? Yes. Does that mean someone who calls Obama a war criminal after his death is a idiot? The reason why Bush isn't technically is a war criminal is because he's protected by the office of the United States of America. That doens't remotely render this woman's point inaccurate.
And if you aren't willing to address this point, then you're in no position to take a stand on this woman's tweet.
Asking me to disprove philosophical theory, nice try. Not really
"Free will"? Unsubstantiated, unsupported belief. The issue is you're trying to define free will as something independent of the scientifically proven factors that determine who we are. Our choices are based on who we are, and who are are is largely based on how our parents raise us. Asserting that parents have nothing to do with how their children turn up is nonsense. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for your children, don't have them.