Las Vegas

[Doomblade403xxx]

  That's not true. The majority of suicide attempts fail, the majority who fail do not reattempt. These are from statistics gathered the WHO. This "if they want to they will" suits the gun lobby because it makes the suicides from guns seem as if they cannot be attributed to the instrument of choice, but it isn't true, they can. Guns are the second most lethal method of suicide and the most common in the US.

  A bomb without the detonator won't do anything on its own either. Should it be legal to possess them as long as the two are kept separate? Of course not. A signal jammer won't do anything as long as its switch off. Can I bring mine on a plane? I won't turn it on.

Would it shock you to know that most anything you need to make a bomb can be found at retail outlets and farming supply stores across the United States? I mean Timothy Mcveigh killed alot of people with Fertilizer and diesel fuel, which you can literally get anywhere. You can buy a knife at wal mart for 3 bucks and up. Any electronics store has switches and electronics gear. Someone with even a basic knowledge of electronics and build a detonator out of a couple gas station cell phones.

And exactly what isn't true? The methods of suicide? Men tend to be more violent and succeed hangings and firearms are pretty much dominated by men.  Women tend to choose methods that aren't as violent and for the majority of women it's overdosing. You can look it up. Every bit of that is hard fact.

[LisztesFerenc]

Would it shock you to know that most anything you need to make a bomb can be found at retail outlets and farming supply stores across the United States? I mean Timothy Mcveigh killed alot of people with Fertilizer and diesel fuel, which you can literally get anywhere. You can buy a knife at wal mart for 3 bucks and up. Any electronics store has switches and electronics gear. Someone with even a basic knowledge of electronics and build a detonator out of a couple gas station cell phones.

  No, I'm well aware how terrorists cells make them (I don't know the exact process, but I know its not very expensive or hard to acquire the parts). Its still illegal to make bombs, even if you remove the detonates.

And exactly what isn't true? The methods of suicide? Men tend to be more violent and succeed hangings and firearms are pretty much dominated by men.  Women tend to choose methods that aren't as violent and for the majority of women it's overdosing. You can look it up. Every bit of that is hard fact.

  You're statement of "If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it". Like you're previous statement about removing several cities drastically altering the homicide rate of the US, its a sadly not that uncommon misconception spread primarily over the internet.

[Doomblade403xxx]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

[LisztesFerenc]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

  http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics

  Relevant extract: According to the American Association of Suicidology (based on a SAMHSA study)1, there are 25 attempts at suicide for every one success.

  So yes, unless you "accidentally found" 24 out of every 25 attempts, you're either a liar or stubbornly sticking a mistaken impression your first hand experience gave you that is contradicted by the actual numbers.

[Vekseid]

33,000 gun-assisted suicides per year, over 70,000 gun injuries per year.

Just by owning a gun, it is 40 times more likely to be used on you or a family member than it is on an intruder.

I've sworn off ever owning a handgun because of this. Long guns secured in a safe for me.

...
If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it.
...

This is false.

The immediacy of a gun is a prime factor, as the drop in Australia's suicides demonstrates. Their suicide rate has fallen by almost a third since enacting gun control, the majority of it because of gun control.

[Regina Minx]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

A) The plural of anecdote is not data

Firearm suicides with women are rare.

B) So rare, in fact, that it's only the second largest cause of death by suicide among women (and only 5% less, at that):



Throughout this entire conversation, you have been incorrect in point of fact at least twice to my knowledge, and you have never acknowledged this point. This leads me to suspect that you are not arguing in good faith.

C) On the topic of suicide by guns, the method of suicide IS significant to the conversation. Suicide attempts are far more likely to result from temporary life crises. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not, in fact, end up dying from suicide. But attempting to kill yourself with a gun makes it very unlikely that you will survive your suicide attempt.



Given the brief duration of some suicidal crises, a lethal dose of pills in the nightstand poses a greater danger than a prescription that must be hoarded over months to accumulate a lethal dose. Similarly, a gun in the closet poses a greater risk than a very high bridge five miles away, even if both methods have equal lethality if used.

D) There are 25 attempted suicides for every 1 successful suicide.

More people start an attempt and abort it than carry it through; therefore, methods that can be interrupted without harm mid-attempt — such as overdose, cutting, CO poisoning, and hanging/suffocation — offer a window of opportunity for rescue or change of heart that guns do not. Even jumping from a high place offers an opportunity to interrupt that a self-inflicted gunshot wound does not. Most people who commit suicide do not make the attempt like they wanted to get it over with. They hesitate for a significant amount of time before jumping, shooting, or swallowing the pill, or starting their car in a garage. That time on a window ledge, roof, or bridge gives passersby a long time to notice and call help, which is why suicides by falling only succeed 30% of the time, in addition to not choosing a high enough jump point.

E)  In Israel, where military service is mandatory they had a pretty bad suicide problem over the weekend when soldiers went home. Their solution was to require that soldiers keep their guns on bases when they went home. Here is a key line from the study's abstract: Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using firearms over the weekend...Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a relatively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.

[Vergil Tanner]

So, quickly gonna poke my head in here and chime in about the Vegas shooting itself for a moment, since nobody seems to really know what actually happened.

Love him or hate him - and believe me, I've disagreed vehemently with him before - Sargon seems to have made at least a half decent attempt at working out exactly what happened in Vegas. Since there are conflicting accounts and altering details, it's tough, so...there are lots of maybes and I don't knows, of course. But his video at least makes a respectable attempt at a non biased accounting of the different stories and postulations abounding. Again, I know he's polarising, but you have to respect the effort if nothing else.

Das Video

I dunno what to believe at the moment, but even the possibility that there was more than one shooter and that this might have been planned is...chilling in how plausible it is. >.>

[Regina Minx]

Sargon of Akaad is a well-known conspiracy theorist. Honestly, Vergil, I don't have 40 minutes to waste on the 'evidence' offered by a 9/11 Truther, PizzaGate-er, Seth Rich was silenced by the DNC-er, and New World Order-er.

To your final point, plausible does not mean probable.

[Vergil Tanner]

As far as I'm aware, he doesn't believe any of those things, and I've been watching his videos for a while. In fact, as far as I remember, he actively makes fun of the people who believe that nonsense. I don't always agree with.him, but listening to other opinions is never a bad thing.

As far as I'm concerned, he goes out of his way in the video to avoid editorialising or bias, and tries to just present the conflicting stories and accounts that are present so far, as well as what we van be sure of.

I do find it strange though that you can label him as a conspiracy nut and dismiss him out of hand without even watching the video, especially on a justification that I don't even think is true. If you're going to dismiss him, then that's fine...but it would be intellectually dishonest to do so without hearing him out first.

[Oniya]

Well, he doesn't have a particularly encouraging track record.

[Vergil Tanner]

I'm not saying he's always right, or that I always agree with him. I will say that labelling him a 9/11 truther, NWOer and Pizza Gater is unfair considering that as far as I'm aware, he's never stated he believes any of those things.

Of course, most of what's.present on that page is controversial, yes, but not objectively wrong. I mean, I don't know.enough about Gamergate to speak to any of it - I became aware of it towards the end when there was so much shit slinging from both sides to be able to work out with confidence what had started the whole mess - but everything else...well, you might disagree with him, but it isn't like he's an unreasonably science denier who thinks the moon landing was fake.

And hell, you can disagree with him, that's fine. Again, I frequently do. But dismissing his attempt to piece together what happened in Vegas without even watching it? It's not exactly reasonable or open minded. Even if he were a crazy conspiracy but, a broken clock can still be right twice a day. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on who is making it.

[Regina Minx]

I'm not saying he's always right, or that I always agree with him. I will say that labelling him a 9/11 truther, NWOer and Pizza Gater is unfair considering that as far as I'm aware, he's never stated he believes any of those things.

911 Trutherisms:

• Video: "One of [my friends] is a complete skeptic, he thinks that the 9/11 attacks were caused by planes, that the buildings fell down because planes collided with their top stories and that caused the structural collapse of these two giant skyscrapers that were designed to withstand plane impacts. So he's very much blue-pilled in that regard."
• From the comments of that video:
• Another video
• A livestream

NWOer:

• Video
• From the comments of that video:

Pizza Gate:

• Video. Note I was flippant in summarizing this view of his before. He is NOT a Pizza Gater per se. However, in this video, he spends a very long time talking about why child sex rings are common and "the left" should take them seriously. Which is kind of Pizza Gate in another name.

And hell, you can disagree with him, that's fine. Again, I frequently do. But dismissing his attempt to piece together what happened in Vegas without even watching it? It's not exactly reasonable or open minded. Even if he were a crazy conspiracy but, a broken clock can still be right twice a day. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on who is making it.

If a person constantly peddles conspiracies with very little evidence to back them up, they have a serious credibility problem. Sargon is quick to jump to conclusions and chronically fails to do enough research. If I'm being less polite about it, he's a tin-foil hat wearing, fact-challenged idiot.

Aside:
Yes, a stopped clock may be right twice a day. But if we actually need the clock to tell us what time it is, at any given moment we check it the chance that the clock would be right is only 1/720 (roughly 0.14%). If you want to be extraordinarily generous and say that +/- five minutes of the actual time is 'close enough', the clock is still only accurate 2.8% of the time.

And I'm not spending 40 minutes watching a conspiracy theorist with no relevant expertise or credibility get it wrong (which he is almost certainly doing based on prior probabilities alone).

[Vergil Tanner]

911 Trutherisms:

• Video: "One of [my friends] is a complete skeptic, he thinks that the 9/11 attacks were caused by planes, that the buildings fell down because planes collided with their top stories and that caused the structural collapse of these two giant skyscrapers that were designed to withstand plane impacts. So he's very much blue-pilled in that regard."
• From the comments of that video:
• Another video
• A livestream

I was unaware of that video, or those comments. In that case, then, I disagree with him strongly and think he's bought into a lot of the misinformation and misconceptions peddled around the issue. But, that being said, him having one opinion I think is stupid isn't justification to dismiss him as a conspiracy nut. Everybody has opinions that other people are gonna think are stupid, and everybody is gonna be wrong about some things. As I said above, the argument stands or falls on its own merits, and I think that Sargons attempt to compile the different accounts of what happened in Vegas is a fairly respectably non-bias attempt.

NWOer:

• Video
• From the comments of that video:

Well I mean...I think he's being a bit silly, but I don't know anything about "Agenda 21" so I can't comment. That was three years ago, though, and opinions can change. All I know is that I've seen him mocking NWO'ers since then, so...I dunno. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he didn't.

Pizza Gate:

• Video. Note I was flippant in summarizing this view of his before. He is NOT a Pizza Gater per se. However, in this video, he spends a very long time talking about why child sex rings are common and "the left" should take them seriously. Which is kind of Pizza Gate in another name.

Well....he's right, in a way. Child sex rings are more common than people like to admit, and even if they aren't, they should most certainly be paid more attention to because even ONE child sex ring is one ring too many.

If a person constantly peddles conspiracies with very little evidence to back them up, they have a serious credibility problem. Sargon is quick to jump to conclusions and chronically fails to do enough research.

Oh I agree, his research in a lot of cases leaves a lot to be desired. It's why I don't tend to take what he says on face value and look at other sources. I do agree with him sometimes, and I disagree with him sometimes. My point was simply that, having not watched the video at all, you are...not qualified to comment on its contents because you're ignorant of them. I personally think that that particular video is actually a decent attempt at compiling the conflicting information we have at the moment, and he goes out of his way on several occasions to say "I can't corroborate this, this is just what's being claimed by some people."
And of course, it being a planned attack is not controversial. The amount of guns he had on him - and the explosives at home - suggest that this was not a spur of the moment thing. Which is chilling in its own right.

If I'm being less polite about it, he's a tin-foil hat wearing, fact-challenged misogynist.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue there; Sargon is a lot of things, but he's most certainly not a misogynist, and using that word to try and discredit everybody you happen to disagree with on certain issues just devalues the word. I disagree with a lot of things he says and does, but accusing him of misogyny is, in my opinion, extremely unfair.

And I'm not spending 40 minutes watching a misogynist conspiracy theorist with no relevant expertise or credibility get it wrong (which he is almost certainly doing just based on prior probabilities alone).

And of course, probabilities are always correct.
See, on this, unless you watch the video, your opinion can be dismissed just on the basis of you not doing the research into what he's saying, which is exactly your problem with him. I can appreciate your perspective on the matter, but since you haven't watched / listened to the video...you don't know whether this is actually one of the rare cases where he's being reasonable.


NOTE:

ANYWAY, this isn't a thread about Sargon, so I'd rather stop discussing that before we derail the thread. I don't agree with him all the time, and i do agree that he has a habit of jumping to conclusions sometimes which is why I tend to ignore his conclusions and just listen to the reasons he has them. In any case, I know that he has a habit of that, which is why I brought the video up; I do think it's a rare example of him actually being pretty unbias and just reporting on what different people are saying. There's a little bit of his conclusion jumping towards the end, but relatively minor compared to some of the leaps he tends to make.

In any case, this thread is about Vegas and the shooting, and the gun laws therein, so I'm gonna stop derailing the thread now

[Regina Minx]

But, that being said, him having one opinion I think is stupid isn't justification to dismiss him as a conspiracy nut.

He's stated that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged, presented as fact a debunked about evidence OF the attack as being a photoshop, stated that the statements of "journalist" Eva Bartlett's conspiratorial statements on Syria were "completely accurate" (they were not).

He spends a lot of time tweeting about George Soros. (Tweets deleted, alas)

He proposed many conspiracy theories around Brexit.

He has stated that Cultural Marxism is a greater threat to civilization than right-wing violence.

He stated that Adolf Hitler faked his own death and fled to Argentina. He later said that is probably true.

He said: "Chat, what was the name of the guy? He was actually a DNC insider who was a Bernie supporter who was totally disaffected by the Hillary Clinton campaign. And then he turns up dead and, it's like, he was the leak. He was the fuckin' leak. He was bound to be the leak. I'm just gonna get the chat up. I can't remember his fuckin' name off the top of my head... Seth Rich. He was basically murdered while walking home in an apparent mugging gone wrong, in which nothing was taken..." He also later said that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC.

Dude, he's a fucking conspiracy theorist.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue there; Sargon is a lot of things, but he's most certainly not a misogynist, and using that word to try and discredit everybody you happen to disagree with on certain issues just devalues the word. I disagree with a lot of things he says and does, but accusing him of misogyny is, in my opinion, extremely unfair.

Don't impugn me again. If I call someone a misogynist, I'm doing so because I have a reason, and I won't have you insinuating otherwise. I'm actually a little lot insulted that you seem to think that I'd just call someone a mysoginist as a way of poisoning the well.

He honestly believes that feminists and feminism are a mental illness needing to be destroyed. And that Anita needs to be destroyed.

Content Warning: You May See Red

And of course, probabilities are always correct.

A) You were the one that brought up stopped clocks, which have an accuracy that can be mathematically described
B) Yes. By definition, something that is probably true is going to be true more often than not. And if something, like a stopped clock or Sargon of Akkad (remember, you made the comparison), is only correct less than 1% of the time, they're almost certainly going to be wrong. To say "But they might not be" is to commit the possibly therefore probably logical fallacy.

See, on this, unless you watch the video, your opinion can be dismissed just on the basis of you not doing the research into what he's saying, which is exactly your problem with him.

I think I pretty well proved that I have a better understanding of this individual than you do. Sargon lacks any real respect for truth or logic and lacks any relevant credibility or expertise in the field of shooting investigation. I am not interested in what a conspiracy theorist has to say about this.

[Vergil Tanner]

He's stated that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged, presented as fact a debunked about evidence OF the attack as being a photoshop, stated that the statements of "journalist" Eva Bartlett's conspiratorial statements on Syria were "completely accurate" (they were not).

He spends a lot of time tweeting about George Soros. (Tweets deleted, alas)

He proposed many conspiracy theories around Brexit.

He has stated that Cultural Marxism is a greater threat to civilization than right-wing violence.

He stated that Adolf Hitler faked his own death and fled to Argentina. He later said that is probably true.

He said: "Chat, what was the name of the guy? He was actually a DNC insider who was a Bernie supporter who was totally disaffected by the Hillary Clinton campaign. And then he turns up dead and, it's like, he was the leak. He was the fuckin' leak. He was bound to be the leak. I'm just gonna get the chat up. I can't remember his fuckin' name off the top of my head... Seth Rich. He was basically murdered while walking home in an apparent mugging gone wrong, in which nothing was taken..." He also later said that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC.

Dude, he's a fucking conspiracy theorist.

I have a lot to say about all of that, but I don't want to derail the thread anymore. But yes, I agree that he has some really weird ideas. As I said, I don't always agree with him on much, but I listen to his opinions in order to listen to people that I disagree with. Every so often I find myself agreeing with him on something, and that's enough reason for me to continue to include his channel in the "prevent an echo chamber" program I have for myself.
However, I will say this: That Brexit Debate was not conspiracy theories, just opinions that have variable basis in fact. Also, his "Cultural marxism is a bigger threat?" Disagree or agree, that isn't a conspiracy theory, and i think you're stretching the definition of the term there.

As for the Hitler thing, I had no idea he said that. As I said, I only really watch his longform videos, so I'd have to look into that to form an opinion on it. I will, though, because if true that's...absurd.

Don't impugn me again. If I call someone a misogynist, I'm doing so because I have a reason, and I won't have you insinuating otherwise. I'm actually a little lot insulted that you seem to think that I'd just call someone a mysoginist as a way of poisoning the well.

See, on the surface, that's a justified offence. And then you say this.

He honestly believes that feminists and feminism are a mental illness needing to be destroyed. And that Anita needs to be destroyed.

Sorry? I know about his position against Feminism. Thing is, disliking feminism is NOT the same as disliking WOMEN, and you're conflating the two together. Are you saying that everybody who dislikes modern Feminism is a sexist misogynist? That's utterly absurd. Hey, guess what? I don't really like modern feminism that much, and I don't identify as one for a myriad of reasons. Does that make me a sexist?

You can dislike Sargon. I kinda dislike a lot of what he says as well. But saying that he's misogynistic because he dislikes feminism? Sorry, but the opposite of feminist is "Not a feminist." The opposite of "Feminist" is NOT "A sexist."

Also, on Anita: Yeah, he does. But that's because he dislikes her ideas, not because she's a woman. And on this, I find myself kind of on his side in that I really dislike Anita and her ideas as well. Because they're simplistic, poorly researched and - in some cases - outright dishonest. Not because she's a woman.

Content Warning: You May See Red

Oh, I know about that tweet. And though I don't really think it was clever or funny, and I think he should have handled it better, I will say that I kinda see the point he was trying to make; that is, it doesn't matter what you say, there are people in any given movement that will construe your comments in a way that furthers what they want to achieve. Case in point, people immediately accused Sargon of giving out a rape threat. Now...say what you want about the tweet. It's distasteful, insensitive and deliberately inflammatory, but the one thing it isn't is a threat. And yet people claimed it WAS. Which was precisely the point he was trying to make.

B) Yes. By definition, something that is probably true is going to be true more often than not. And if something, like a stopped clock or Sargon of Akkad (remember, you made the comparison), is only correct less than 1% of the time, they're almost certainly going to be wrong. To say "But they might not be" is to commit the possibly therefore probably logical fallacy.

Except I never said that just because he COULD be meant that he IS. I said that because he COULD be, it was at least worth taking the time to investigate. All I'm advocating is listening to people you disagree with. Even if you come out still disagreeing, then that's fine. At least your position on his opinion will be honest and informed, rather than reactionary.

I am not interested in what a conspiracy theorist has to say about this.

And that's fine. That's your prerogative. I just think that if you haven't actually heard what he has to say, you have literally 0 authority to judge his opinion either way. You can say "I don't care what he thinks," that's fine. But you can't say that he's right or wrong, since you don't know what he thinks. That's all I'm saying; if you want a valid opinion on somebodies position, you at least need to know what that position is first.

[Oniya]

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. - Edward R. Murrow

There's a real problem with claiming that something-or-other is a 'rare instance of' someone being reasonable - that problem is that they've already destroyed their credibility by being unreasonable.  There used to be a tabloid called the Weekly World News.  They specialized in outlandish articles like 'Boy Raised By Bats', and had frequent articles about JFK, Elvis, and occasionally Marilyn Monroe being alive and - in whatever state of health would be appropriate for their age.  It was good for a laugh, and to line the bottom of the bird cage, but it was the kind of journalism that was (intentionally) so non-credible that if the WWN predicted rain, you wouldn't bring an umbrella.

If someone only has 'rare instances' of being reasonable, my time is better spent listening to people who have an established track record of being reasonable.

[Vergil Tanner]

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. - Edward R. Murrow

There's a real problem with claiming that something-or-other is a 'rare instance of' someone being reasonable - that problem is that they've already destroyed their credibility by being unreasonable.  There used to be a tabloid called the Weekly World News.  They specialized in outlandish articles like 'Boy Raised By Bats', and had frequent articles about JFK, Elvis, and occasionally Marilyn Monroe being alive and - in whatever state of health would be appropriate for their age.  It was good for a laugh, and to line the bottom of the bird cage, but it was the kind of journalism that was (intentionally) so non-credible that if the WWN predicted rain, you wouldn't bring an umbrella.

If someone only has 'rare instances' of being reasonable, my time is better spent listening to people who have an established track record of being reasonable.

And that's completely fair. I never said he should be taken seriously all the time; he's a self professed "Internet Shitlord," which suggests that he at least has a little bit of self awareness about him, but that's not the point. The point I was making was that, of the videos I've seen, it's actually the best so far of trying to piece together the different accounts of what happened and is worth a look if nothing else, since...well, as controversial and polarising as he is, he's of the fairly uncontroversial opinion that what happened was bad and that the possibility of more than one shooter should at least be investigated just in case.
I know that he has a habit of jumping to conclusions. I wouldn't have posted the video if I thought it was just another one of those. I mean...as I said before, an argument stands or falls on its own merits, and if this is an example of him being unbias and reasonable, then it couldn't hurt to at least take a look, no?

[Regina Minx]

See, on the surface, that's a justified offence. And then you say this.

The correct response was "I apologize for accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I realize, Regina, that you are dedicated to logic and reason and that you would never intentionally engage in fallacious thinking, and that even if I suspected that to be the case, the a fortiori thing to do would be to ask you what evidence you had to back up your claim that Sargon was a misogynist."

Since you haven't done that, and indeed, doubled down on your claim that I'm arguing in bad faith, I'm going to disengage with you at this point.

Anyone interested in Sargon of Akkad and getting a sense for the kind of person he is could do little better than to watch this debate-slash-interview from a conference I attended earlier in this month.

https://youtu.be/TwY4rvhWVf4?t=6785

Even when Sargon was asked to attempt a civil and respectful debate, to try and dialogue and understand another person, he did the exact opposite. Literally the exact opposite. And his bizarre ideology and basic failings at logical reasoning and empathy, and his constant rage and disgust and contempt are so clearly and efficiently on display in this video that I don't need to justify why I don't think that Sargon has anything to contribute to the conversation.

[Oniya]

And that's completely fair. I never said he should be taken seriously all the time; he's a self professed "Internet Shitlord," which suggests that he at least has a little bit of self awareness about him, but that's not the point.

No, it most certainly is the point.  If I were to come to you and say 'The Weekly World News has an article saying that JFK and Elvis are living together in San Francisco', you would have every right to dismiss that without a second glance, because the Weekly World News was, in its day, exactly the sort of tabloid that would write up whatever pack of fiction would get the most 'views'.  (It worked until the Internet came around and people could read creepypastas instead.)

[Vergil Tanner]

The correct response was "I apologize for accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I realize, Regina, that you are dedicated to logic and reason and that you would never intentionally engage in fallacious thinking, and that even if I suspected that to be the case, the a fortiori thing to do would be to ask you what evidence you had to back up your claim that Sargon was a misogynist."

Since you haven't done that, and indeed, doubled down on your claim that I'm arguing in bad faith, I'm going to disengage with you at this point.

Sorry, Regina, but when I did indeed challenge your assertion that Sargon was a misogynist, your first point of defence was that he dislikes feminism...which was exactly what I was implying that you do; "Everybody who disagrees with feminism is sexist." That's what you were implying by saying that you think he's misogynistic for disliking feminism.

If that is not what you're saying, then I will happily apologise. I wasn't (intentionally) accusing you of arguing in bad faith in my previous reply, I was genuinely asking if you were actually suggesting that not being a feminist makes you a sexist, since that seemed to be the implication of your response. If that is not what you are saying, then please by all means, clarify your position. But from where I'm standing, when you respond to the challenge that you're mislabelling him and your first point of evidence - the one you reach to automatically - is that he's an anti-feminist, that implies that you believe that everybody who is against feminism is inherently sexist. Now that might not be your actual position...but that's what it looked like.

I will admit that I jumped the gun a little bit and overstepped when I implied that you thought him a sexist because you disagreed with him rather than because he's done something you think is sexist. However, in my defence, your reaction to that implication did nothing to dispel my impressions, since - whether you were intentionally using it or not - it remains a pretty common tactic of the louder, more aggressive feminists in the world is "If you're not a feminist, you're a sexist and I can safely ignore you." Which your comment seemed to imply in context.

If you want to disengage, then that is entirely your right. But I will maintain that the implication of your response to my original questioning of your position implies that you are indeed engaging in a logical fallacy. You might not be, but that's the impression that your own words have given.

Anyone interested in Sargon of Akkad and getting a sense for the kind of person he is could do little better than to watch this debate-slash-interview from a conference I attended earlier in this month.

https://youtu.be/TwY4rvhWVf4?t=6785

Even when Sargon was asked to attempt a civil and respectful debate, to try and dialogue and understand another person, he did the exact opposite. Literally the exact opposite. And his bizarre ideology and basic failings at logical reasoning and empathy, and his constant rage and disgust and contempt are so clearly and efficiently on display in this video that I don't need to justify why I don't think that Sargon has anything to contribute to the conversation.

I watched that debate, and honestly, neither of them came out looking good...but in all honesty, Thomas lost his shit a LOT more than Sargon did, and I think ended up looking much worse. Sargon repeatedly tried to boil down to the principles and why they disagree, but all Thomas was interested in doing was throwing shade to try and make Sargon look like an awful human. In all honesty, the "debate" was kind of a circus, but BOTH sides contributed to that, not just Sargon.

I mean, you say "His rage and and disgust," but Sargon just looked amused. it was THOMAS losing his shit, not Sargon. It was Thomas with the emotional arguments and reactionary responses, not Sargon. Sargon was actually trying to be relatively civil, and Thomas was the one engaging in personal attacks. Hell, he even turned around and started hurling abuse at the AUDIENCE as well. Which is...not the thing to do. >.>

No, it most certainly is the point.  If I were to come to you and say 'The Weekly World News has an article saying that JFK and Elvis are living together in San Francisco', you would have every right to dismiss that without a second glance, because the Weekly World News was, in its day, exactly the sort of tabloid that would write up whatever pack of fiction would get the most 'views'.  (It worked until the Internet came around and people could read creepypastas instead.)

Yeah, but they're hardly comparable. If you said that the Weekly World News was saying that Elvis and JFK are in SF, then yeah, I'd dismiss it as stupid. But that isn't what I said. I said that Sargon has a video that I think is actually a decent attempt at piecing together the different accounts of something that happened LAST WEEK that the police are still uncertain exactly what happened. That is hardly the same thing, so your analogy is kind of a false one.

If you said to me, as somebody that I respect the opinions of and who I know is not prone to wild conspiracy theories or irrational thought that the WWN had a surprisingly decent attempt at working out what happened in Vegas, I would say "Huh, if Oniya thinks it's worth a nose, I might as well skim through it and see what I think. What's the harm?"
But then, I guess I just have more time on my hands hands than some other people. >.>

[Oniya]

And I would honestly hope that when you found out I'd used such a terrible source, that your opinion of my credibility would go down.

[Vergil Tanner]

I'm not saying that Sargon is a.credible source. I'm saying that a broken clock is right twice a day, and I think that this might be one of those times. It's very hard to be wrong on 100% of what you say, after all, and I don't think that anybodies credibility should go down because they've said "I know he isn't normally a good source, but I think on this occasion he's made a respectable effort.
I mean, I'd like to think whatever credibility I might have can survive saying " I think this is an uncharacteristic example of an actually half decent video by him." Unless you're saying that because I happen to think this video isn't bad, I'm now tainted despite you not having watched it? I don't think that's particularly fair.

[Oniya]

No, I'm saying that if I watch the video and determine that it is indeed a horrible source, that your credibility will be lowered.  However, first I have to decide if the value I place on my time makes those 40 minutes a good risk.  As you say, perhaps you have more free time than others.

[Vergil Tanner]

Aaah, I see. Then with that, I agree with you. Though if you do find it a horrible source, then I'd like you to tell me why so I can consider whether I think you're right or not I do want my beliefs and opinions to be backed by fact, after all xD

And yeah, I know I have a lot more time. I listened to it on the train to work the other day; I have like an hour and a half journey to school, so I have about three hours of travel to kill every day xD