50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

Post Reply
User avatar
Cassandros
Hamsterphile
Posts: 2025
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#376

Post by Cassandros »

AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?

Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.

It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.

What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.

So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.

Shame you can never admit to it.
No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#377

Post by AnalHamster »

Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?

Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.

It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.

What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.

So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.

Shame you can never admit to it.
No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
User avatar
Cassandros
Hamsterphile
Posts: 2025
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#378

Post by Cassandros »

AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?

Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.

It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.

What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.

So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.

Shame you can never admit to it.
No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#379

Post by AnalHamster »

Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:52 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?

Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.

It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.

What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.

So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.

Shame you can never admit to it.
No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
You introduced subjective categories for applying what you claimed was an inarguable definition, you did so because you didn't want to call the hong kong protesters terrorists but had to on the terms you were incorrectly calling antifa terrorists. You introduced the subjective category of the degree of violence (the one I'd told you for a half dozen pages had to be in there) and you claimed it had to be x% of the group, and you declared the Hong Kong ones couldn't be terrorists anyway because you liked their aims.

Of curse it's subjective to pick 90% you fucking moron, you randomly picked 90% instead of 10% or 50%. How fucking dumb are you? Do you know what subjective means? :lol:
User avatar
Cassandros
Hamsterphile
Posts: 2025
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#380

Post by Cassandros »

AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:14 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:52 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?

Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.

It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.

What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.

So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.

Shame you can never admit to it.
No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
You introduced subjective categories for applying what you claimed was an inarguable definition, you did so because you didn't want to call the hong kong protesters terrorists but had to on the terms you were incorrectly calling antifa terrorists. You introduced the subjective category of the degree of violence (the one I'd told you for a half dozen pages had to be in there) and you claimed it had to be x% of the group, and you declared the Hong Kong ones couldn't be terrorists anyway because you liked their aims.

Of curse it's subjective to pick 90% you fucking moron, you randomly picked 90% instead of 10% or 50%. How fucking dumb are you? Do you know what subjective means? :lol:
I can only judge based on what I see and read.

What is common knowledge: the groups motif is to 'punch nazis'. And "nazi" is the label they throw on anyone who disagrees with them politically, (regardless of their actual political leaning). There are countless videos showing antifa using violence and threats to terrorize others.

Can you show me something non-subjective that implies less than 50% of antifa engages in any of the rhetoric their vocal group actively promotes?
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#381

Post by AnalHamster »

Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:14 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:52 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pm

No time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.

Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
You introduced subjective categories for applying what you claimed was an inarguable definition, you did so because you didn't want to call the hong kong protesters terrorists but had to on the terms you were incorrectly calling antifa terrorists. You introduced the subjective category of the degree of violence (the one I'd told you for a half dozen pages had to be in there) and you claimed it had to be x% of the group, and you declared the Hong Kong ones couldn't be terrorists anyway because you liked their aims.

Of curse it's subjective to pick 90% you fucking moron, you randomly picked 90% instead of 10% or 50%. How fucking dumb are you? Do you know what subjective means? :lol:
I can only judge based on what I see and read.

What is common knowledge: the groups motif is to 'punch nazis'. And "nazi" is the label they throw on anyone who disagrees with them politically, (regardless of their actual political leaning). There are countless videos showing antifa using violence and threats to terrorize others.

Can you show me something non-subjective that implies less than 50% of antifa engages in any of the rhetoric their vocal group actively promotes?
Why would I engage with your new subjective figure of 50% when you won't admit it's subjective? I prefer 54%. I'm afraid I cannot enterain you question unless you concede the magic made up number is 54% instead of 50%. Do you even know what subjective means, you poor fool?
User avatar
Cassandros
Hamsterphile
Posts: 2025
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#382

Post by Cassandros »

AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:52 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:14 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:52 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm

Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /roll

ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?

I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.

Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.

Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.
Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
You introduced subjective categories for applying what you claimed was an inarguable definition, you did so because you didn't want to call the hong kong protesters terrorists but had to on the terms you were incorrectly calling antifa terrorists. You introduced the subjective category of the degree of violence (the one I'd told you for a half dozen pages had to be in there) and you claimed it had to be x% of the group, and you declared the Hong Kong ones couldn't be terrorists anyway because you liked their aims.

Of curse it's subjective to pick 90% you fucking moron, you randomly picked 90% instead of 10% or 50%. How fucking dumb are you? Do you know what subjective means? :lol:
I can only judge based on what I see and read.

What is common knowledge: the groups motif is to 'punch nazis'. And "nazi" is the label they throw on anyone who disagrees with them politically, (regardless of their actual political leaning). There are countless videos showing antifa using violence and threats to terrorize others.

Can you show me something non-subjective that implies less than 50% of antifa engages in any of the rhetoric their vocal group actively promotes?
Why would I engage with your new subjective figure of 50% when you won't admit it's subjective? I prefer 54%. I'm afraid I cannot enterain you question unless you concede the magic made up number is 54% instead of 50%. Do you even know what subjective means, you poor fool?
What I see of antifa is 90% actively threatening, or actually punching, anyone deemed by them as a 'nazis' [read:anyone not in line with their politics].

You cannot entertain the question because you have no means of answering it with your current use of spin. You know the actions of theirs which I used to say were 'fascist', but now - thanks to you - I call 'terrorist' are all deeds taken by the majority of the movement; and as such,

My use of definition is apt.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

#383

Post by AnalHamster »

Cassandros wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:03 am
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:52 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:32 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:14 pm
Cassandros wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:52 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:47 pm

Designating a terrorist group is a governmental act dumbass. It occurs when a government designates a group a terrorist group. How you think the late recognition of ISIS as a terrorist group by one government supports your theory that there's one fixed definition you personally get to subjectively apply is a bit of a mystery. That there are a lot of definitions used by governments, (included 6 used just by the US government to avoid catching its own intelligence services) is the point I've made all along.

I do not want to claim antifa=Hong Kong protesters, I am simply pointing out that you cannot distinguish between them with the definition you insist on without bringing in your additional personal subjective definitions, looking at the crimes they commit and the proportion of the group involved. Need me to quote you doing it again?

Just can't stop kicking your own ass can you?
Your over use of the term subjective is annoying. Also, we are discussing dictionary terminology only; its use, or lack there of, in government agencies is irrelevant and moot.

Not wanting to lump a whole group into a single definition that only actually applies to ~1% of those participating -> is not being subjective.
Its being reasonable.

It is also not subjective to label a group based on 90+% of it practitioners actions and deeds. Its a statement of record and fact.
You introduced subjective categories for applying what you claimed was an inarguable definition, you did so because you didn't want to call the hong kong protesters terrorists but had to on the terms you were incorrectly calling antifa terrorists. You introduced the subjective category of the degree of violence (the one I'd told you for a half dozen pages had to be in there) and you claimed it had to be x% of the group, and you declared the Hong Kong ones couldn't be terrorists anyway because you liked their aims.

Of curse it's subjective to pick 90% you fucking moron, you randomly picked 90% instead of 10% or 50%. How fucking dumb are you? Do you know what subjective means? :lol:
I can only judge based on what I see and read.

What is common knowledge: the groups motif is to 'punch nazis'. And "nazi" is the label they throw on anyone who disagrees with them politically, (regardless of their actual political leaning). There are countless videos showing antifa using violence and threats to terrorize others.

Can you show me something non-subjective that implies less than 50% of antifa engages in any of the rhetoric their vocal group actively promotes?
Why would I engage with your new subjective figure of 50% when you won't admit it's subjective? I prefer 54%. I'm afraid I cannot enterain you question unless you concede the magic made up number is 54% instead of 50%. Do you even know what subjective means, you poor fool?
What I see of antifa is 90% actively threatening, or actually punching, anyone deemed by them as a 'nazis' [read:anyone not in line with their politics].

You cannot entertain the question because you have no means of answering it with your current use of spin. You know the actions of theirs which I used to say were 'fascist', but now - thanks to you - I call 'terrorist' are all deeds taken by the majority of the movement; and as such,

My use of definition is apt.
OK, very very simple one for you here. Do you know what the word subjective means? You are making subjective additions to your definition. Therefore you were wrong with your claim that it was not subjective. What part do you not get?
Post Reply