11 Dallas Cops shot at protest

I don't think I'm the one that is cherry picking.

When you have a movement founded on the basis that cops are engaged in a war against black people, there is some culpability when some of your members retaliate against cops. You can disagree with that, you can pretend I said something I didn't, and you can argue that the movement isn't a group or that leaders aren't leaders, but that doesn't make it untrue.

 

Because people followed him.

 

To be certain that I understand you, before continuing, and so that I don't mistakenly assume - your position is that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a leader in the Civil Rights movement.

Is that correct?

That seems the much more important question, and infinitely better than asking / answering as to "why" or "must" he have been.

 

So if Sally tells Stan, "c'mon." And Stan goes. Sally is a leader, because Stan followed her?

That's not leadership, to me.

 

That isn't the original question that was asked, nor a follow up to the answer given.

And it isn't actually continuing if you don't answer questions, but only ask them. That's not a conversation. That's an interview.

If you would like to continue, you may answer any of the 10 or so questions asked of you, today.

 

Ad hominem with just a seasoning sprinkle of red herring. That you're already reduced to these fallacies should give you pause.

Here, let me play it back for you:
1. You agreed that "BLM is just like the Civil Rights movement"
2. Later, in response to BPV, you say, "Hey, just a comparison of parts. Didn't say they were equal."

I merely tried to clarify, believing that "just like" is equivalent to "equal" - but then becoming confused when you claimed that they were not "equal" after all. You are the cause of my confusion, because your own stated positions are not mutually sustainable, but exclusive. So I asked then, and now, which is it - is it true that they are "just like" and "equal", or not?

So, pick a lane, hold a reasonable steady consistency throughout, and don't project your failing to do so on me, as I'm responsible for neither the argument nor it's defense.

 

Ah, this sounds completely reasonable.

And I'll go first. Point me to any question which was posed to me, and has gone unanswered.

Then, we'll dig into how BLM has no leaders, and that it's just like the Civil Rights movement in this way, as you've seemed to claim.

Putting a pin in this one, because there is great stuff to be had.

 

We'll start at post #779. I'm following up to post #787. So you won't have to search far. But, the gist of it was this:

The questions posed to you are the ones with the question marks.

 

Actually, I said this, in response to number 1: Caveat 1 to contain that whole comparison/analogy thing, where parts of one isn't equivalent to the whole, and yup. You've got it.

So, applying the previously established rules for analogy, in which one can find that something is like another, without finding them equal, I hold 1 to be true. To which I responded exactly that to BPV.

And no, just like is not equivalent to equal. Equal is equal. We've established this in this thread.

And yes, your inability to accurately portray an argument is a failing on you, by you.

 

It sounds as if you are absolving the group of the actions or positions you don't like.

If Sally tells thousand "c'mon" and thousands go, I think Sally is a leader. If Sally shapes and influences the actions of those that are following her, I think that is leadership.

In your example, it is possible Stan is simply a stalker.

 

No, I'm just not attributing something that isn't part of the movement, to the movement. There has been no call to arms. Even if you think there has been.

"War on X" is a rhetoric, and has been for decades. It is no more a call to arms, action or anything than the "war on drugs" is a call for drugs to rise up and fight us, or us to strap on our m4s, and blast cocaine. Or the war on obesity. Nobody is making a call for fat to fight back, or for us to frag fat.

 

See...that's cherry picking.

War on blacks isn't war on blacks. Don't believe it or wrong people said it or just rhetoric. "Dead cops" was only a few guys, like "bacon fryers." Probably same guys. Leaders aren't the real leaders, so there aren't any, except when they are disavowing "dead cops" guys, when they are.

All of those things are part of the movement, so the movement is all of those things. You can't just choose to discard the parts you don't like and still accurately describe what BLM is, does, or wants to achieve.

 

What is part of the movement, and how do you know?

 

When the majority of those involved do the action.

When the majority of those involved: that means, people, not self described "leaders", do a thing, that was a thing.

Jumping on cars. Not part of the movement. Marching. Part of the movement. Protesting. Part of the movement.

Illegally blocking traffic. Part of the Memphis movement. And a few others, from what I saw. Hey look, a negative, illegal action. Still part of the movement, unfortunately.

A few chants, a lone militant. Hell, 50 militants. No where near a majority.

 

Would it help if we called it the Old Testament BLM, and now we have the New Testament BLM?

Or is that still cherry picking?

 

Majority?

It just looks like you are tossing out the parts of the movement (whatever the hell that means) that you don't like or don't want to acknowledge. That doesn't sound exactly right for a movement dedicated to advancing minority interest.

 

Not sure i understand. Who is Jesus, Assata or MLK?

 

I named IP earlier. He seems fit. And we've already crucified him.

 

A majority of a minority is still a minority. But not sure why that would cloud a minority movement.

 

What are the principles of the majority in BLM? Toss out those nasty minority views, no matter how vocal, as they don't count.