[ Back to Main | Show Dates | Photos | Language Index ]
a preliminary exposition of the burden of proof in capital punishment debates
ok. line-by-line. start at the top. speakers should be clear.
VERITY: You argue against hostility and then go out and call people names and try to insult their intelligence, yet you wonder why people depict you as whiny and contradictory.
LOKI: sorry, verifier, but i don't remember arguing about hostility --- particularly verbal hostility instantiated only through tone. in this case, i think that the point i was trying to make was effectively conveyed, and the form of its expression has resulted in your willingness to suck it up and actually attempt to engage in dialogue. this is precisely the form of behavior which i (consistently) argue as central to the success of the current movement. i challenge you, waarhijdetje, to present me with specific examples of contradiction in my own statements. bear in mind --- however, that my attempts to refrain from the more crass forms of speech (and occasional attempts to encourage this behavior in others) is anciliary to my beliefs. i believe in EFFECTIVE dialogue, and i don't think those with the above tone are generally effective. i do not however, claim any beliefs about the legitimacy of hostile forms of speech. violence, now there's a different issue.
VERITY: Freedom of speech is one thing, but then there is respect for the people around you.
LOKI: c'mon, you came here looking for a fight and did your best to start one. this wouldn't be so offensive --- in fact, quite the opposite --- if you had been more productive and cogent in your submission. and you specifically asked to be "yelled at or something" which would "stir up some more controversy" since you're "bored at work" and thought "it was fun to debate you guys". i think i behaved with the highest degree of respect in response to this submission --- i gave you nearly exactly the reply that you had requested. and what about the trivializing tone with which you (twice) post this trite submission. is THAT the example of "repect" to which i should aspire?
VERITY: If you want to make your point, then use your intellect because it is the best weapon, unfortunately you have come to battle unarmed.
LOKI: a quick observation on the topic of "contradiction": this statement IIMEDIATELY follows a speech-relativized appeal for respect --- which itself immediately follows an accusation of contradiction. slick. i couldn't have constructed a better example myself. as for the concerns about my abilty to employ intellect: who was it that got you to shift strategies from vacuous baiting commentary to a submission with at least one line of actual argumentation? oh yeah, the dumb guy with the potty mouth. the relevant line is as follows:
VERITY: Now, You want contradictory, well here it is. During the RNC there were protesters blocking a street to fight the car culture and the environmental damage that it has caused. When they were cleared, all that remained was empty plastic water bottles, brown sandwich bags, and some dirty old clothes. You litter my street with your filth to protect the environment.
LOKI: first of all, which intersection and which group? this is relevant to the credibility of your claim and i don't know the specifics about any anti-combustion groups that were out on --- i presume --- august 1. next, are you certain that this group was responsible for the litter that you speak of? next --- and in less-than full seriousness, but not entirely lacking --- are you certain that the group (if responsible) took a position regarding the arbitrary disposal of the items you discuss? this is essential for "contradiction" you don't just get it for free because both issues are "about the environment". more cogently, are you certain that the presence of litter is not an effect of the police response to the direct action occuring at that intersection? likely, the responsible disposal of consumer waste was hampered by plastic restraints and physical removal of the relevant protestors. but you're the one with all the facts. please be sure to share them with the class when you want your arguments to be understood and accepted.
also, an argument that i am less-than enthusiastic to use --- since it is largely moot, impossible to determine and not reflective of the attitiudes seen in more committed environmental movements (of which i am not a member) --- but will present to expose the narrow confines of true contradiction is the one in which paper bags had been chosen for their degradability properties and the water bottles had been filled and re-filled over the course of teh entire preceding week. this type of behavior is typical and, i feel, largely indicative of the product-choice and re-use decisions that make your observations less-than damning. sure their waters and lunches got left behind when the police dragged them out of there, but their intentions had been otherwise, and their pre-arrest behavior was likely indicative of these intentions (in precisely the manner just outlined).
and by the way, I did not litter YOUR streets: first of all, they are also MY streets and, secondly, i did not litter. do a little digging. there is no US (especially when that group is defined in juxtaposition to the one refered to as YOU). both are illusions. PEOPLE may have littered THE streets, but this is no different from the behavior of residents and jersey shoppers/clubbers every day --- just more protracted from the exceedingly unusual poulation density eshibited in that area of town during that week. it was likely visitors of all shapes and sizes who littered the streets (perhaps not the exact street that you are refering to, but certainly "the streets"). the only difference being that: the "invited" guests were thowing corporate money at upscale dining and entertainment establishments whereas the activists were eating pizza and hoagies; the "invited" guests were throwing money at "fashionable" boutiques whereas the activists were pinching pennies to hold their bus fares home. this is the root of the differential welcome --- not the danger inherent in anarchism and not the risk of violence posed by organized protest, just the influx of corporate money and the promotion of relative status for local officials (timoney clearly made a killing and i saw street chillin with the kennedys during the dnc). why do you think the two groups (one of whom spent orders-of-magnitude more time DRUNK on the streets and in various states at the local "gentleman's clubs" than the other --- guess which) received such a profoundly different welcome? one word: capital.
peace, dialogue and enlightenment.