International Active US Air Force member self-immolates outside Israel Embassy in Washington

[SmilinDesperado]

You keep painting yourself as open minded but from the outset you had an opinion and you constantly speak to everyone from an authoritative positions and generalize and dismiss dissenting opinions. Not just to me and @SmilinDesperado but to like, basically everyone. Me and him have very different opinions on the conflict as a whole and you painted us with the same brush stroke. Im sure that he finds that as amusing as I do as while you were doing it we were literally arguing in the other thread. You can't imagine how people could invest time into thinking about something and not reach your conclusion You do that in the face of established logic even.

Going from that thread to reading this thread I was like..

The irony was definitely not lost on me. Getting lectured about being close minded and unable to see other possibilities whilst being put in the same box with someone I have many disagreements with on the issue was a hoot.
Especially since it would have been clear what I thought had he been open minded enough to just read and take in what I actually wrote about Bushnell and the cause.

But all is good @terrapin It can happen in the heat of War Room battle.

If you pay attention to the arguments I've made in this thread and many others, you'll find that for the most part, what I'm arguing for is the ambiguity of situations and the many possible outcomes. I'm almost always arguing against the certainty that people have when they claim opinion as fact and make assumptions without evidence. That was even true in the Bigfoot thread where you guys made a mockery of logic and reason. But none of you could conceive of my position because you don't have that gear.

You seem to be arguing for particular possible outcomes and ignoring the ones that don't jive with your world view.

I NEVER said it could ONLY effect positively, not once. so that's the answer to your question.

You're not not saying it either. You're just calling everyone close minded if we don't have the same positive spin on this that you have. @Blayt7hh mentioned the effect that event could have on his family. How about his friends? How about some other young person that follows his lead?
Using your framework, there is no bad really, because everything can turn into a positive. Because of his death, maybe he didn't have a child that would have grown up to be a drunk driver that killed a little boy. Or maybe the dog he would have adopted went to a child that needed it more?
We can play this game of possibilities all day, but it's largely pointless because there are endless possibilities and ways to spin something into a positive.
You're arguing about possibilities, and I am arguing about probability. Is it possible some good comes from this in the form of someone being touched by it or something ? Sure. Is it probable that there were better ways to support Palestine? YEAH.
It's really not even that deep.
Simply put, I wish he had did something that didn't involve him taking his life. That's it. I get that you're coming from a more spiritual side, but I'm not questioning his love or sincerity or what possible magic was released when his spirit hit the air.

 

[spamking]

This is an outright lie and I'm not sure why you would be such a liar.

I don't know why this immediately came to mind . . .

You have this huge problem with confusing opinions with statements of fact. Anything you disagree with is a lie. Anyone you hold a contrary view with is a liar. Carrying on any type of discussion with you is so mind-numbing and useless.

I don't even have a definite position of this man.

This is an outright lie . . . I don't know why you'd be such a liar.

You've called this guy a martyr who's actions are similar to those of the disciples and Jesus . . . so spare me.

The entire crux of my argument is that you can't condemn him with certainty because you don't know his motives and you can't say his actions will do no good because you just not smart enough to know the outcome has actions will have on all of humanity. Are you put here to judge?

I'm arguing for the ambiguity of the situation and the possibilities. I've even said multiple times it's possible he was mentally ill but we just don't know that.

I don't mind if you criticize my positions, but maybe you should know them before you do so?

The entire premise of your position is to paint yourself as some enlightened contrarian while supplementing things others have said with bits and pieces of information to support your stance.

As to the Jesus disciples question, it's not a stretch to say there is a strong similarity. There are strong similarities. They gave their lives on purpose. Some of them left behind families in service of a cause. Each of them could have easily avoided their death, but the message they carried meant certain death. I don't know how much difference it really makes who did the killing...

You might call it suicide, but I don't think it quite is suicide. At least not in the sense that Christianity condemns suicide. "IF" The man did what he did out of great selfless love it would not be fair to characterize that as suicide without a ton of caveats.

And when you think of why suicide is condemned not just in Christianity but elsewhere. It's because it stems from a kind of despair and devaluation of the gift of life and that kind of despair can spread and destroy other people's lives along with the life that was lost.

But if this man did what he did out of great love for the Palestinians that's not an act of despair. It's something different. It's an act of love and hope. And it can spread love and hope.

There is absolutely no point in responding to any of this. And not for the reasons I'm sure you'll try to apply.

 

[spamking]

If you really feel that way about me, then I suggest you just don't respond to me anymore.

I think I need to do this as well . . . my goodness.

 

[KaNesDeath]

I blame Hasan. He promoted one of the houthi pirates on his stream and has been extreme in his rhetoric regarding this conflict. *Still shocked Amazon didnt ban him for that.

 

[terrapin]

I don't know why this immediately came to mind . . .

You have this huge problem with confusing opinions with statements of fact. Anything you disagree with is a lie. Anyone you hold a contrary view with is a liar. Carrying on any type of discussion with you is so mind-numbing and useless.



This is an outright lie . . . I don't know why you'd be such a liar.

You've called this guy a martyr who's actions are similar to those of the disciples and Jesus . . . so spare me.



The entire premise of your position is to paint yourself as some enlightened contrarian while supplementing things others have said with bits and pieces of information to support your stance.



There is absolutely no point in responding to any of this. And not for the reasons I'm sure you'll try to apply.

If you go read my post history, it is very clear that I have not taken a definite position on this guy.

 

[terrapin]

I don't know why this immediately came to mind . . .

You have this huge problem with confusing opinions with statements of fact. Anything you disagree with is a lie. Anyone you hold a contrary view with is a liar. Carrying on any type of discussion with you is so mind-numbing and useless.



This is an outright lie . . . I don't know why you'd be such a liar.

You've called this guy a martyr who's actions are similar to those of the disciples and Jesus . . . so spare me.



The entire premise of your position is to paint yourself as some enlightened contrarian while supplementing things others have said with bits and pieces of information to support your stance.



There is absolutely no point in responding to any of this. And not for the reasons I'm sure you'll try to apply.

I don't even begin to think I'm enlightened. I just think most of you guys are arguing just for your own self-centered opinions and have no ability to think beyond your own box.

it's a very small-minded way to discuss things.

 

[BudKing8806]

What a weak little bitch. Like anyone is going to give a shit that you light yourself on fire for some stupid reason.

 

[terrapin]

@SmilinDesperado


I noticed you liked several posts where internal to the post it said that if a person changed his or her mind after watching what this man did and reconsidering the facts, they are committing a logical fallacy.

Should I take that to mean that you concur that anyone who changes their mind for any reason sparked by this man's actions is committing logical fallacy? This is the posters claim and he makes no exceptions.

In one post. I gave him six examples that were not logical. Fallacies but I'm wondering if you disagree?


Even the person who doesn't know anything about it but then sees what this man did and then learns about it?

Even the person whose heart is softened and weighs the evidence more accurately because of it?

Is it all logical fallacy as @Blayt7hh claims?

 

[My Spot]

He absolutely should be condemned, his wife and especially his kids have to live with this shit forever.

 

[Blayt7hh]

@SmilinDesperado


And one post. I gave him six examples that were not logical. Fallacies but I'm wondering if you disagree?

Even the person who doesn't know anything about it but then sees what this man did and then learns about it?

Even the person whose heart is softened and weighs the evidence more accurately because of it?

Is it all logical fallacy as @Blayt7hh claims?

This I said in my very first interaction with you and many times after was the only reasonable response you could hope for:

Even the person who doesn't know anything about it but then sees what this man did and then learns about it?

My very first post to you:

It might draw attention to the issue but why should anyone change their opinion because of what he did?

There's no conclusion to be drawn now except that you are the actual dishonest poster you have accused everyone else of being. Like what in the actual fuck guy

Don't think it's going unnoticed by everyone in this thread that you haven't answered this question either:

If he had shouted “The Earth is flat!” While he burned to death, would you reconsider your position on whether the Earth was flat or not?

Edit: I'll go ahead and explain to you why you aren't answering. Because by the logic you presented, you understand that you would now be forced to admit that you would have to seriously reconsider if the Earth was round or not; a ridiculous proposition. Hence, the fallacy.

Hilariously, you keep invoking emotion as the reason to reconsider their arguments when you say things like "soften their heart" and somehow STILL don't see how it is an appeal to emotion.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

self deletion for any group is dumb as hell, let alone for a group that isn’t yours. “Genocide” or not, it will accomplish nothing but make your own family go through a nightmare scenario.

 

[USA!USA!]

He absolutely should be condemned, his wife and especially his kids have to live with this shit forever.

damn didn't know he had a family - that makes it 100x worse.

 

[terrapin]

I don't know why this immediately came to mind . . .

You have this huge problem with confusing opinions with statements of fact. Anything you disagree with is a lie. Anyone you hold a contrary view with is a liar. Carrying on any type of discussion with you is so mind-numbing and useless.



This is an outright lie . . . I don't know why you'd be such a liar.

You've called this guy a martyr who's actions are similar to those of the disciples and Jesus . . . so spare me.



The entire premise of your position is to paint yourself as some enlightened contrarian while supplementing things others have said with bits and pieces of information to support your stance.



There is absolutely no point in responding to any of this. And not for the reasons I'm sure you'll try to apply.

if yo

Going from that thread to reading this thread I was like..

The irony was definitely not lost on me. Getting lectured about being close minded and unable to see other possibilities whilst being put in the same box with someone I have many disagreements with on the issue was a hoot.
Especially since it would have been clear what I thought had he been open minded enough to just read and take in what I actually wrote about Bushnell and the cause.

But all is good @terrapin It can happen in the heat of War Room battle.


You seem to be arguing for particular possible outcomes and ignoring the ones that don't jive with your world view.

You're not not saying it either. You're just calling everyone close minded if we don't have the same positive spin on this that you have. @Blayt7hh mentioned the effect that event could have on his family. How about his friends? How about some other young person that follows his lead?
Using your framework, there is no bad really, because everything can turn into a positive. Because of his death, maybe he didn't have a child that would have grown up to be a drunk driver that killed a little boy. Or maybe the dog he would have adopted went to a child that needed it more?
We can play this game of possibilities all day, but it's largely pointless because there are endless possibilities and ways to spin something into a positive.
You're arguing about possibilities, and I am arguing about probability. Is it possible some good comes from this in the form of someone being touched by it or something ? Sure. Is it probable that there were better ways to support Palestine? YEAH.
It's really not even that deep.
Simply put, I wish he had did something that didn't involve him taking his life. That's it. I get that you're coming from a more spiritual side, but I'm not questioning his love or sincerity or what possible magic was released when his spirit hit the air.

this is not true. I'm calling everyone closed minded who assumes these facts as self evident when it is impossible to know this. after assuming these facts they denigrate any position that is different from them.

my position has been perfectly consistent in this thread. arguing for certainty here is wrong and illogical.

here are the assumed facts I have argued against anyone knowing for a fact.


-- the man is crazy
-- the man cannot have done any good of any kind with his actions.
-- the man cannot have been coming from a genuine place of self sacrifice for what he believes is the greatest good....
-- the man is a narcissist who thought he could end the war with his actions.

 

[DarthChen731]

Folks be talking about a wife and kids but I don't see sources for this anywhere -- anyone got em?

 

[terrapin]

This I said in my very first interaction with you and many times after was the only reasonable response you could hope for:

My very first post to you:


There's no conclusion to be drawn now except that you are the actual dishonest poster you have accused everyone else of being. Like what in the actual fuck guy

Don't think it's going unnoticed by everyone in this thread that you haven't answered this question either:

Edit: I'll go ahead and explain to you why you aren't answering. Because by the logic you presented, you understand that you would now be forced to admit that you would have to seriously reconsider if the Earth was round or not; a ridiculous proposition. Hence, the fallacy.

Hilariously, you keep invoking emotion as the reason to reconsider their arguments when you say things like "soften their heart" and somehow STILL don't see how it is an appeal to emotion.

its not a logical fallacy if a person is moved emotionally to weigh evidence BETTER. and what about an autistic person? what if they see what this man did and change their mind after researching more because of what this man did but have no emotion at all around it?

you said ANYONE would be committing a logical fallacy if they changed their based on what this man did....

what if the person who changes their position had arrived at their initial position through emotion but because of this mans sacrifice (or stupidity) looked more deeply at the actual evidence?

do you think 7 billion people all came to an understanding through reason only and so cannot shift their perspective?


you have made an indefensible claim. funny how no one else seems to have the balls to call it out... maybe because they are on your side and are emotionally motivated.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

@SmilinDesperado


I noticed you liked several posts where internal to the post it said that if a person changed his or her mind after watching what this man did and reconsidering the facts, they are committing a logical fallacy.

Should I take that to mean that you concur that anyone who changes their mind for any reason sparked by this man's actions is committing logical fallacy? This is the posters claim and he makes no exceptions.

In one post. I gave him six examples that were not logical. Fallacies but I'm wondering if you disagree?


Even the person who doesn't know anything about it but then sees what this man did and then learns about it?

Even the person whose heart is softened and weighs the evidence more accurately because of it?

Is it all logical fallacy as @Blayt7hh claims?

I haven't been reading all of your posts where you guys are going back and forth on the logical fallacies bit. The posts I liked had something in it that I agreed with, or mentioned me, but it didn't mean I agreed or disagreed with everything in it.

I don't know, I don't really like the framing of the question. I just don't really think of this in that way. But I would probably largely agree with him.
If you softened your heart, or changed your mind on the issue solely because you watched this man self-immolate, I'd call it an appeal to emotion.
Even though I personally would be happy that the person changed their view, regardless of how they got there, they didn't get there based on an argument...just on the belief in his belief.
If a Russian and a Ukranian went in front of each other's embassies and set themselves on fire, whose death would touch me more?

 

[terrapin]

I haven't been reading all of your posts where you guys are going back and forth on the logical fallacies bit. The posts I liked had something in it that I agreed with, or mentioned me, but it didn't mean I agreed or disagreed with everything in it.

I don't know, I don't really like the framing of the question. I just don't really think of this in that way. But I would probably largely agree with him.
If you softened your heart, or changed your mind on the issue solely because you watched this man self-immolate, I'd call it an appeal to emotion.
Even though I personally would be happy that the person changed their view, regardless of how they got there, they didn't get there based on an argument...just on the belief in his belief.
If a Russian and a Ukranian went in front of each other's embassies and set themselves on fire, whose death would touch me more?

his position is that anyone under any circumstances is committing a logical fallacy if they change their position after seeing this mans actions.

can you really concur with that in good conscience? there is NO qualifier here that they wont weigh the evidence BETTER as a result of seeing this btw. we're are taking about everyone on the planet here.... even autistic people..


so a person who weighed the evidence arbitrarily goes and looks more deeply and that is a logical fallacy?

come on man... you cant believe this and he has been given every opportunity to qualify his argument differently but out of pride he is sticking to it. ANYBODY who changes their position after this man's actions is committing logical fallacy.

I've given these kinds of examples to him. he has not changed his position based on them. they are not new. there are NO exceptions.


do you concur with his take still?

 

[DarthChen731]

^This dude is so far off topic it's unreal.

The topic is not "is there a possibility that people might research something if something happens", it's "is some white American kid setting himself on fire as a protest for Palestinians retarded?" and the answer is yes

 

[SmilinDesperado]

if yo

this is not true. I'm calling everyone closed minded who assumes these facts as self evident when it is impossible to know this. after assuming these facts they denigrate any position that is different from them.

my position has been perfectly consistent in this thread. arguing for certainty here is wrong and illogical.

here are the assumed facts I have argued against anyone knowing for a fact.


-- the man is crazy
-- the man cannot have done any good of any kind with his actions.
-- the man cannot have been coming from a genuine place of self sacrifice for what he believes is the greatest good....
-- the man is a narcissist who thought he could end the war with his actions.

2, 3 , 4 , or 5 things can all be true at the same time.
I don't think everyone has this absolutist view that you're trying to attach to everyone.

I've said I think he had some mental health issues, that he could have done something better with his life, and that he could also have been genuine in his want to help despite also possibly having some narcissistic traits.
I say all of that while agreeing with his sentiments about the people in Gaza.

The word "crazy" can mean a lot to a lot of different people, and it's a word that is often very loosely used to describe a variety of mental states.
I certainly wasn't saying 100% he is crazy, 100% he wasn't genuine, 100% he was a narcissist. Is anyone really saying 100% he is ______ and that is the end of his story?
I haven't followed all of your battles in this thread, but it's not like you really gave people much of a chance to flesh out their thoughts because you immediately go into how dim and close minded everyone is. You're projecting this all or nothing view on to everyone.

 

[terrapin]

2, 3 , 4 , or 5 things can all be true at the same time.
I don't think everyone has this absolutist view that you're trying to attach to everyone.

I've said I think he had some mental health issues, that he could have done something better with his life, and that he could also have been genuine in his want to help despite also possibly having some narcissistic traits.
I say all of that while agreeing with his sentiments about the people in Gaza.

The word "crazy" can mean a lot to a lot of different people, and it's a word that is often very loosely used to describe a variety of mental states.
I certainly wasn't saying 100% he is crazy, 100% he wasn't genuine, 100% he was a narcissist. Is anyone really saying 100% he is ______ and that is the end of his story?
I haven't followed all of your battles in this thread, but it's not like you really gave people much of a chance to flesh out their thoughts because you immediately go into how dim and close minded everyone is. You're projecting this all or nothing view on to everyone.

I stated ambiguity and was attacked for it. not the other way around.... the people who have attacked me have attacked with certainty. my position has ONLY been one of openness to the possibilities-- even the possibilities of those who have attacked me. I realize I mistook your position and you have already stated it is POSSIBLE that some good could come from his actions and that he was not crazy.

many people have claimed to know for an absolute fact that no good could come from this. that is the heart of why @Blayt7hh is falsely claiming logical fallacy. he is just trying to prove that NO good could have come from this man's actions as it would ALL be logical fallacy. an absurd position obviously.

many people have stated they know for a fact he was this or that. YOU have not and honestly if a person just says "this is my opinion" I don't even see the need to debate it with them. it is the certainly in the name of logic and reason that I always find myself disputing.

I also have NEVER stated anything about him as a fact in this thread unless I misspoke but in context no one could possibly think I do think that as I have directly contradicted that many times intentionally.