Reply #63: ROFL

[Two Americas]

Of course not.

I did not say, would not say, and nor did the OP that "it is actually more likely that a window broken in a demonstration was broken by an undercover cop and not by an aggro."

You are asking us to believe that the only alternative to dismissing the possibility that a plant was involved would be to insist that it was a plant? That is completely illogical.

You are saying that since it was probably not a cop, that all speculation that it might be is therefore invalid, and then you characterize the position of others falsely - saying that they are insisting that it had to be a cop.

No one said that it was a certainty that this was done by a cop, and I did not say that this is roughly analogous to the certainty that slavery is a bad thing.

I said you are using a common style of argumentation that has been used through the ages to defend those in power. That is - "not all those in power are bad" and "not all of those in opposition to those in power are good." That is true enough, but what is the point in using that against people?

You are saying that not all demonstrators are good, and not all police are bad. "Fair and balanced." It "goes both ways."

Not all white people are racist - therefore, we cannot talk about racism without being accused of accusing all white people of being racist - "reverse racism."

Not all hetero people are bigoted - therefore we cannot talk about bigotry without being accused of "reverse bigotry" or "poutrage" or something.

Not everything that every Union has ever done is good, so therefore any advocacy of Unionism requires that people are reminded about that before they are allowed to take a pro-Union position or discuss the subject.

Not all bankers are bad, so therefore we should not criticize the banking system.

"Fair and balanced," and "both sides do it" is a way to prevent people from expressing any stand, and always supports the status quo - it argues in defense of those in power, and always has.




...