And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The part that you’re missing is “in other people’s minds when they make a judgment” because the commenter was making broad generalizations about centrists. Something you left out of your hypothetical by removing the context. Yes, genocide is a huge deal in and of itself, but it’s not an enormous weight in people’s minds generally speaking. The more thoughtful ones probably do, but it’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind type of deal. It usually happens on the other side of the world for Americans.
Do you see how I’m not saying that we should downplay genocide, but rather the commenter needs to take down a peg the weight they give it to arrive at their conclusion? Do you see how I’m staying within context when you stop your shrieking about it?
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide.
And I just explained how I was not, and that I DID jump through the hoop, and I can prove that I did. Don’t make shit up.
Brother, it was not a “trap.”
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical
Absolutely not. You divorced what I was saying from the context and turned it into absolutes that I was not claiming. Which, incidentally, is the same reason why you think I hold a contradictory position, because you refuse to understand what was said and would rather shriek at me about what YOU THOUGHT I said.
And, honestly, I’m quite fed up with you. You either get what I said or you don’t. I won’t spoon-feed you again.
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
Once upon a time, Socrates had a discussion about the gods with someone named Euthyphro. Socrates asked, “Are the things the gods command good because the gods command them, or do the gods command things that just happen to be good? If you say it’s the first, then saying that the gods command good things is really just saying “the gods command what the gods command,” a meaningless tautology. But if you say the gods command things that we independently judge to be good, then there must be some other source of goodness, and in that case, why don’t we follow that directly, without needing the gods?”
Euthyphro responded “AHA! YOU’RE TRYING TO LURE ME INTO A TRAP!!! I CAUGHT YOU11!!! THAT QUESTION MAKES ME LOOK BAD EITHER WAY SO IT’S OBVIOUSLY BAD FAITH!!!” and Socrates said, “Aw, dang, you got me” and it never came up again.
You must also wish Socrates had it, since you don’t know what basic logic looks like, at all.
In case it went over your head, the story I told you did not turn out the way I described, in fact, what Socrates said became an enduring concept in philosophy, they even came up with a special term for it, the two “horns” of the Euthyphro dilemma, like the two horns of a bull, if you grab one, you get impaled by the other. It is considered a compelling argument precisely because it’s a no-win situation.
I actually watched the video you linked earlier. It’s a good video, you just completely misinterpreted it. Again, I don’t know how many times I have to explain this to you: just because a line of logic makes you look bad, that isn’t enough reason for you to reject it. That’s absolutely not what the video is saying.
The part that you’re missing is “in other people’s minds when they make a judgment” because the commenter was making broad generalizations about centrists. Something you left out of your hypothetical by removing the context. Yes, genocide is a huge deal in and of itself, but it’s not an enormous weight in people’s minds generally speaking. The more thoughtful ones probably do, but it’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind type of deal. It usually happens on the other side of the world for Americans.
Do you see how I’m not saying that we should downplay genocide, but rather the commenter needs to take down a peg the weight they give it to arrive at their conclusion? Do you see how I’m staying within context when you stop your shrieking about it?
And I just explained how I was not, and that I DID jump through the hoop, and I can prove that I did. Don’t make shit up.
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
Absolutely not. You divorced what I was saying from the context and turned it into absolutes that I was not claiming. Which, incidentally, is the same reason why you think I hold a contradictory position, because you refuse to understand what was said and would rather shriek at me about what YOU THOUGHT I said.
And, honestly, I’m quite fed up with you. You either get what I said or you don’t. I won’t spoon-feed you again.
Once upon a time, Socrates had a discussion about the gods with someone named Euthyphro. Socrates asked, “Are the things the gods command good because the gods command them, or do the gods command things that just happen to be good? If you say it’s the first, then saying that the gods command good things is really just saying “the gods command what the gods command,” a meaningless tautology. But if you say the gods command things that we independently judge to be good, then there must be some other source of goodness, and in that case, why don’t we follow that directly, without needing the gods?”
Euthyphro responded “AHA! YOU’RE TRYING TO LURE ME INTO A TRAP!!! I CAUGHT YOU11!!! THAT QUESTION MAKES ME LOOK BAD EITHER WAY SO IT’S OBVIOUSLY BAD FAITH!!!” and Socrates said, “Aw, dang, you got me” and it never came up again.
And this is what matters to you? Good to know.
You lost
Not really. I proved my point.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Like your buddy here did? Have you come to his rescue only half informed?
Weak, try harder
Will do for you, babe
Yes, I do consider basic fucking logic pretty damn important.
Wish you had it.
You must also wish Socrates had it, since you don’t know what basic logic looks like, at all.
In case it went over your head, the story I told you did not turn out the way I described, in fact, what Socrates said became an enduring concept in philosophy, they even came up with a special term for it, the two “horns” of the Euthyphro dilemma, like the two horns of a bull, if you grab one, you get impaled by the other. It is considered a compelling argument precisely because it’s a no-win situation.
I actually watched the video you linked earlier. It’s a good video, you just completely misinterpreted it. Again, I don’t know how many times I have to explain this to you: just because a line of logic makes you look bad, that isn’t enough reason for you to reject it. That’s absolutely not what the video is saying.
You talk a lot about the process for someone who jumps to conclusions rather quickly. I’m glad you found something to hold onto, though.