The Gaming Den

fectin wrote:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident

I don't see a defense of arson anywhere. I also don't see a defense of the radio host anywhere. Calling them crappy and idiots is pretty far from "perfectly acceptable". I guess you can complain that he questions whether it was arson at all, but that's actually undermining his main point so I'm not sure why you would.

Well, in this case I'm pretty sure that's because you are a retarded lying shithead who specifically avoided reading the rest of Tzor's post.

Here's the whole thing:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later...

So let's break that compound question up in to three questions.

1) Is the radio host to blame?
2) Is the arsonist (or accidental firestarter, but let's be honest, arsonist) to blame?
3) Are the government officials to blame?

While number 3 could possibly to blame, or could have been acting reasonably given the circumstances, Tzor thinks they are solely to blame.

That means that Tzor does not think that people who advocate arson or commit arson to blame. He very clearly said that.

I understand, you are an idiot, so you think being called stupid means the same thing as unacceptable because you can't draw fine distinctions. But I think believing in a god is stupid, none the less, it is acceptable. We are talking about blame here. Arsonists are to blame for arson. People who advocate arson are to blame when people commit arson at their encouragement. I agree they are also idiots. But Hitler is not just stupid, he is also deserving of blame. So too are arsonists.

fectin wrote:That doesn't seem to be a description of "clearing up a demonstrated fire hazard." Do you think that was a reasonable and necessary police action? If so, why are you arguing with Tzor? Guyr's the one who implied that it wasn't. If not, why are you arguing with Tzor? He is also condemning it.

I already answered that question. Learn to read. I am arguing with Tzor because unlike Tzor I believe that arsonists are to blame for arson, and that people who advocate arson are responsible for the effects of the arson they advocated for.

fectin wrote:Yeah, I don't like New York either.

I meant his alternate reality.

fectin wrote:again, source?

The same post the part you fucking deliberately avoided quoting you lying shit.

fectin wrote:Apparently, he's a psychopath because he thinks it's bad to take tents, power, and fire from protesters in the middle of the Canadian winter,

No, he's a psychopath because he believes that the arsonist and arson advocate are not to blame. Which of these premises do you disagree with:

1) Tzor said that they are not to blame.
2) That they are in fact to blame.
3) That believing arsonists are not to blame when they are is not psychopathic.
4) You are a lying retarded shithead who refuses to see that I am talking about the blame of the arsonist and advocate for arson.

fectin wrote:Really. So this bile comes from disagreeing over which of two bad things is worse?

No, this bile comes down to Tzor saying Arson is not bad at all, and me saying that arson is bad. Learn to fucking read.

fectin wrote:Bear in mind that on one side is saying mean things and destroying property, and on the other is exposing several hundred people to winter without proper shelter

No, one side is saying arson is not bad. The other side is saying that arson is bad. There are some people elsewhere who broke up a protest for safety reasons that may or may not have been (but probably were) a pretext, and therefore may or may not be bad.

But realistically, they aren't even actually doing what you claimed, because those people do have homes to go to. They are breaking up a protest, but not actually exposing people.

I really don't know what to make of this. You're actually coming out against the Occupy protests just to stroke your hate-on for Tzor?

So let's walk through these points you think are so telling. I'll try to use small words this time. I hope that will make it easy for you. I know long words can be scary sometimes, but you are a big boy now.

Today, we are going to talk about something called "context." It comes from Latin, and has two parts, 'con' and 'text.' 'Con' is a prefix (which is a fancy way of saying it's the first part of a word!), and it means 'with' or 'together.' Can you think of any other words that start with 'con?'

Well spotted! Your mommy does have congress with donkeys. Good job.

Now, the second part part of that word is 'text,' which means words. Together, 'con-text' is 'with-words,' and it means the words that are with the words you're reading. Isn't learning fun? Let's look at an example of 'con-text' in action!

Kaelik wrote:

fectin wrote:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident

I don't see a defense of arson anywhere. I also don't see a defense of the radio host anywhere. Calling them crappy and idiots is pretty far from "perfectly acceptable". I guess you can complain that he questions whether it was arson at all, but that's actually undermining his main point so I'm not sure why you would.

Well, in this case I'm pretty sure that's because you are a retarded lying shithead who specifically avoided reading the rest of Tzor's post.

Here's the whole thing:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later...

Well done! You quoted the right post! You must feel very proud. But now, I need to say "I'm sorry!" because I assumed you had actually read the posts you answered. Silly me, I should have known better. Oh well! If you had actually read the posts before, you would have seen that I only quoted the part of Tzor's post where he talked about the radio host and the fire-starter.

Now, why would I do that? Well, if you look carefully, you'll see we were talking about arson (there's that 'con-text' again!). So to make it easier, I only included the part where he talked about the people you said were responsible for arson.

But now we get to the hard part: we have to follow 'con-text' through more than one post. I know it's hard for you, but I believe you can do it!

Let's practice: When your mommy says "I turned my back for just a moment, and now all the cookies are gone! Who is to blame for this?" she isn't asking who made her turn her back. Sure, she turned away because you are too hideous to look at, but that's not why she's mad. She's mad because of the cookies!

Now, the same thing happens when Guyr says "There was talk, and then a fire, then the cops came and took everything, and everyone was out in the cold." When Tzor asks, "Who's to blame?" he isn't talking about the fire. He's talking about the exposure! See how that works? It's all about that 'con-text.' And when you jump in, insisting that everyone is talking about the fire instead, it makes you look 'ignorant.' That's another big word. It means "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general." Yup, that sure does sound like you! (Try to hide it a little better)

But I have good news! I found you a playmate who also can't read all the words. He's utterly incoherent, just like you. He says a lot of swears and shouts a lot instead of arguing, just like you. He even says "learn to read" all the time, just like you! Can you guess who it is?

That's right, it's shadzar!

This is the entirety of Tzor's first post on the topic:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident, or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later, because the actions are not justified in any manner by the actions above.

Kaelik, Tzor, and basically everyone were in agreement over the fact that the officials were stupid assholes and to be blamed. Now, Tzor is saying, "blame lies solely with the officials [for the shut down of the rally]," but that's just not true. The radio host engaged in a deliberate action to encourage violent action at the rally; acting on this encouragement, someone deliberately set a fire; in response to this fire, officials (effectively) shut down the protest.

Deliberate sabotage of rallies by political opposition in an attempt to force the government to shut them down is something that has been going on since the 1960's and probably earlier. It's not a new tactic, and it's perfectly fair to say that when your efforts to sabotage the opposition through a third party are successful you are still to blame for that, you can't wave your hands and point at the other guy. Dividing the discussion into "blame for the crime of arson" and "blame for shutting down the rally" doesn't really help, because the obvious purpose of the arson was to sabotage the rally. How is anyone not getting that?

Admittably, Tzor's response was probably more thoughtless than intentional in this regard; he was likely trying to say "given the disposition of the officials, it was going to happen one way or another." And that's totally fair and true. But that doesn't mean the arsonist isn't to blame for trying and succeeding to sabotage the rally. If your friend details in length his plans to murder his ex-wife, and you helpfully offer "since you're going to do it anyway, you can borrow my gun," you are not blameless.

If I ask who or what is to blame for WWI, I'm not sure what you would say. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't say "Gavrilo Princip caused the whole thing." (You may be smarter than I, but I had to look up who the actual assassin was), even though Princip is clearly not "blameless" in any useful sense (having shot a dude and thereby setting the whole chain in motion).

However, I can still reasonably ask "which is to blame for pan-European war, Princip or the web of alliances?" I should even be able to expect a reasonable answer, not accusations that I psychopathicly condone assassination.

In general, the lesson that people take from WWI is not that assassinations are bad, but that automatic declarations of war are bad. That's not a pro-killing position, it's just a recognition that its undesireable to set up a system where a single act causes wide-scale war. Likewise, I think Tzor was making a point about the desirability of a system where anyone with a zippo can shut down a protest.

The part you are missing is that the radio host and arsonist did their actions for the specific reason of breaking up the protest.

If Princip had killed for the express purpose starting WWI, knowing the likely response of the alliance web, that would be analogous.

I understand your point. Essentially, you're saying that the host calling for arson is like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater: he is responsible for any trampling/freezing that results in a moral and causal sense.

I don't disagree with your conclusion.

I happen to believe that people are responsible for their actions, and for the results of their actions. When I read something like Starship Troopers and see the author defend criminals because "it's not their fault. It's society!" that is infuriating to me too.

Even so, it's not completely without merit, and there are plenty of people who believe it.

This thread got really silly.