|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not trying to necessarily convince you, I'm just asking questions and putting forward possible alternatives to the establishment line. I must admit the fact none of you can answer the questions I'm asking adequately but instead get annoyed at the idea of them being asked is a bit humorous though.
Your questions are dumb, though. Ask more interesting questions.
The fact that we choose not to answer dumb questions doesn't mean we don't have answers. [insert reductio fallacy]
I'm not annoyed at your questions. I'm annoyed at your tone. I'm annoyed that your attitude is that your hypothesis is unlikely, but that our failure to entertain your unlikely hypothesis somehow makes it more credible or us less smart. I'm annoyed that you aren't treating everyone here engaging in conversation with you with respect and dignity and an assumption of wanting to share our thoughts and know each other better. But mostly I'm annoyed at your default gas-lighting answers to the rest of us agreeing with you that your hypothesis is unlikely.
In short, your argument isn't pissing me off, your lack of respectful demeanor is.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The main argument seems to be that the SS was having a bad day that day and that's why it happened. That's it. You think that's a plausible explanation, I don't. That's the difference.
OK, so if you understand the crux of it, then why the attitude?
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Most of these comments have involved taking what I say, twisting it into something silly, and then arguing "What I made up about your story is ridiculous, ergo what you actually did say is also ridiculous." Reductio ad mockum isn't a valid form or argument, sorry.
You're being a bit of a jerk, and treating other people with disrespect.
You reap what you sow.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.
People sometimes have bad days.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Who's been interrogated from the SS and put up their hands and said "yes I was the top agent on the ground in Butler, I was in charge of seeing up the protection of Trump that day and I told my guys not to put a sniper on the rooftop. [...]
le rofl
If it's human error, whoever the human is stands to lose their job at the very least and may face credible threats to their life by some other crazy shooter who decides that agent's negligence was intentional.
What they should do if they think there's any hint that their personal negligence had anything to do with the shooting is hire the best goddamn lawyer they can afford because this isn't going to be a small time consequence if their hunch they were part of it is correct. That lawyer is certainly going to tell them to keep their damn mouth shut about this and especially so in any remotely public space or setting.
|
Reply With Quote