It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stop defending people you don't personally know it's a joke

page: 10
32
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So we shouldnt stand up for people we dont know?

Even when we see a wrong being made?

We should just sit down and shut up huh?

I dont think Niemöller would agree with you:




First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Sorry, going to have to kindly tell you youre wrong...........so so wrong........


People don’t seem to understand what’s being defended is principles you believe in, regardless of which side you’re on, or even if you think each side is right in some areas and wrong in others. Names and identities are irrelevant and everything is not black and white - there’s lots of grey.

What I think people really need to stop doing, like the OP has done, is demand that others think and act just like them. That is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the US right now! People seem to think if you don’t think and act just like them, you’re some kind of cancer.


That's a spectrum though; some beliefs are cancer, most are not. Where do you draw the line? I personally believe nobody should have the right to own slaves, and anybody who fights for that right is a cancer. It's about reasonably managing expectations against the argument. When you start defending accusers without proof, you've LOST reason.

This entire debate is Reason vs Unreason. Those who support an accuser with no corroboration or empirical, or EVEN circumstantial evidence are being unreasonable, since they're approaching a situation not based on collectible information, but based on emotion and bias solely.

If you support ford, you're characterizing Kav based upon NO BASE, and unreasonable emotion appeal. This is a logical fallacy and is objectively wrong.

I don't like Kav, but FFS, you can't just make up stuff about people you don't like to impair their career. It's open an shut; one side of the argument is right and the other side is wrong, and the side that is wrong, is the side who committed to the logical fallacy.

I must add here; that it doesn't matter if Kav did it or not. If Kav did it, and there is no proof, you cannot know he did it. If he did it, and you find proof, you find justice.

That's how it works.

In this regard I don't need to attack Ford and so I won't, but also in this regard, one must defend Kav or we're setting a precedent that you're guilty until proven innocent, which is absolutely crazy as you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that every person couldn't have done something, you CAN prove that a specific person did something, however. And in the event that you cannot, you have to side with reason despite what you BELIEVE.

I.E. People believe O.J. did it, even if I believed that and I was on a jury, I'd have to acquit because there was way too much reasonable doubt. They couldn't prove O.J. did it, despite me feeling like he did. If O.J. didn't do it, the guilty party would have remained at large anyway. People seem to care more about making sure SOMEONE pays, and careless if it's the right someone.
edit on 1-10-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So we shouldnt stand up for people we dont know?

Even when we see a wrong being made?

We should just sit down and shut up huh?

I dont think Niemöller would agree with you:




First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



Sorry, going to have to kindly tell you youre wrong...........so so wrong........


That didn't take long, even by Godwin's Law standards.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Fabulous post!



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

Reread my posts. I said from the get go this is all handled wrongly and I also said that things like this do destroy livelihoods.

I also alluded to the fact that for most people, when something of this nature happens and they've been found to be innocent the damage was already done.

In MOST cases, the innocence hardly matters, the clearing of wrongdoing HARDLY MATTERS. The media circus already made everyone's mind up long ago.

Why are the Kardashians famous again?

Yeah, I also explained at the same time that Kav is connected enough to find justice after all of this if he happens to be found innocent... IF this thing ever goes to a court of law.

Not only that, he'll have a platform to utterly destroy the notion of "guilty before the public" and how media can utterly destroy livelihoods, physical and mental health, communities and family.

But meh, I've stated several times I'm an idiot yet my points are seemingly being took totally out of context as if a 2 year old blind child happened to be reading them.

It is what it is, seems I was just talking in an echo chamber where others were shouting and screaming.

It's why things like this happen and no lessons are learned. Nothing positive comes out of them.

Honestly though I'm just laughing at ya's, I've had "hateful" "class warfare" "ignorant" and all sorts thrown at me for daring to enter an echo chamber on a freely accessible public forum that's designed on user generated content that's also designed specifically for interaction and debate.

It is what it is, have a good day

edit on 2-10-2018 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So we shouldnt stand up for people we dont know?

Even when we see a wrong being made?

We should just sit down and shut up huh?

I dont think Niemöller would agree with you:




First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.


Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Sorry, going to have to kindly tell you youre wrong...........so so wrong........


People don’t seem to understand what’s being defended is principles you believe in, regardless of which side you’re on, or even if you think each side is right in some areas and wrong in others. Names and identities are irrelevant and everything is not black and white - there’s lots of grey.

What I think people really need to stop doing, like the OP has done, is demand that others think and act just like them. That is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the US right now! People seem to think if you don’t think and act just like them, you’re some kind of cancer.


That's a spectrum though; some beliefs are cancer, most are not. Where do you draw the line? I personally believe nobody should have the right to own slaves, and anybody who fights for that right is a cancer. It's about reasonably managing expectations against the argument. When you start defending accusers without proof, you've LOST reason.

This entire debate is Reason vs Unreason. Those who support an accuser with no corroboration or empirical, or EVEN circumstantial evidence are being unreasonable, since they're approaching a situation not based on collectible information, but based on emotion and bias solely.

If you support ford, you're characterizing Kav based upon NO BASE, and unreasonable emotion appeal. This is a logical fallacy and is objectively wrong.

I don't like Kav, but FFS, you can't just make up stuff about people you don't like to impair their career. It's open an shut; one side of the argument is right and the other side is wrong, and the side that is wrong, is the side who committed to the logical fallacy.

I must add here; that it doesn't matter if Kav did it or not. If Kav did it, and there is no proof, you cannot know he did it. If he did it, and you find proof, you find justice.

That's how it works.

In this regard I don't need to attack Ford and so I won't, but also in this regard, one must defend Kav or we're setting a precedent that you're guilty until proven innocent, which is absolutely crazy as you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that every person couldn't have done something, you CAN prove that a specific person did something, however. And in the event that you cannot, you have to side with reason despite what you BELIEVE.

I.E. People believe O.J. did it, even if I believed that and I was on a jury, I'd have to acquit because there was way too much reasonable doubt. They couldn't prove O.J. did it, despite me feeling like he did. If O.J. didn't do it, the guilty party would have remained at large anyway. People seem to care more about making sure SOMEONE pays, and careless if it's the right someone.


I think you missed the point of my post entirely. In your post, YOU decided what/who you wanted to defend/not defend. You didn’t do it because someone demanded you do it, like in the OP, where the poster is telling others to stop making their own decisions.

Oh, and if you have read any of my post history, you’ll find I’m pretty much a Constitutionalist with a deep belief in due process (but without ignoring the prosecution aspects of due process, as in when there is enough evidence you prosecute and let juries decide).



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

tell that to the US government, they loved defending the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan !

isnt it called standing up for justice ?

I mean did the British army know any of the millions of jews captured by the nazis when they stood up for them by fighting the nazis ?

You dont have to personally know someone to align your morales or your values as a human being with that person !

to be wrongfully accused of something and your name ruined because of guilty before innocent left wing ideology (actually right wing because they evoke violence )

it's mental dont you want justice to prevail , and that means defending someone you dont know , such as a public defender !

they are standing up for justice and the constitution!

it's not wrong for people to post their opinions, you know you dont have to pay any attention to them !
edit on 2-10-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Remind me not to defend you to others,



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join