Show this to your Libtard friends. The hypocrisy is amazing.
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
It wasn't a categorical error - please go back to reasoning 101.
The video in question clearly shows examples of inciting to violence or condoning violent action in pursuit of a protest of a person / administration they don't agree with.
Then doing a 180 degree turnaround and condemning a protest (against an administration the protestors did not agree with) where the only person who died and who were attacked with was one of the protestors - the protestors themselves did no violence.
Clearly it is not a categorical error in comparison.
BTW, I*m not right-wing or left-wing, I'm Above wings. Meta-political. Don't care about parties, only care about sanctity of life and truth.
Also, what are the "right rules" according to you?
It's a categorical error because they aren't being hypocritical. You argue that they are reacting in 2 different ways to the same thing depending on which side is doing. This is your categorical error. They are not.
You need to become familiar with the concepts of asymmetrical warfare and the workings of the revolutionary mind.
Alexander Macris published a good article about this recently but it can be easily summarized in a single sentence: "That which advances the cause is good, that which does not is evil."
You think they see riots, protests, or violence. They do not. Helping a cat down a tree or starving 150 million people is exactly the same thing to them. They see only whether it advances the cause.
Ah, so from their POV it is not a categorical error, because they play by their rules.
Makes sense in a reality distortion kind of way.
From the ruleset of logical argumentation and equal treatment, it does not.
The categorical error is yours, not theirs.
You're trying to play chess. They're playing checkers with chess pieces, intentionally, to confuse you, and you're yelling that the knight doesn't move this way.
They know. I know. I'm trying to tell you, but you're insisting they must be playing chess since they're using chess pieces. Against all evidence. Against the fact that you can't make any sense of their move. And that's how they win.
Understand the crux of your argument, even though I don't agree with the analogy.
They are not playing chess or checkers, they are claiming to play chess on a chess board, but are crapping on the board and making up rules as they go along.
I think that is more apt analogy.