hugopal
I know what Grant said in point 1, but when you’ve thrown your support behind a race-centred cause such as ‘Black Lives Matter’ surely you can’t just conveniently drop it when it potentially comes in to conflict with another of your supposed causes?!
Where did he say he dropped it exactly? This is really the core point that seems to be eluding you. There’s nothing inconsistent about supporting anti-racism but still being able to distinguish it from behaviour that is not connected to race.
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make about ‘fickle loyalty’ to causes. Have you ever supported a political party but had cause to be critical of something members of the party have done and still remained committed to its causes and overarching philosophy?
You have again completely ignored the question I asked Grant which led to the question I posed in 2.5 . My question was:
hugopal If the exact same thing happened to George Floyd, but he was also unvaccinated, would you have supported the cop? It’s a simple question.
I think the problem is partly the question itself. What does “If the exact same thing happened to George Floyd” mean? If the “exact thing” you are referring to is death resulting from a cop kneeling on his throat: then it is not the exact same thing that happened to GF, to be precise – it is what happened to GF. One reading of your question and the comparison implied within it is that you are asking whether Grant would be indifferent to anything that might happen to GF as a consequence of being unvaccinated despite what we know about what did happen to GF in the context of Chauvin’s actions and that GF became a symbol of BLM. In which case, Grant’s response would make sense.
I think what you meant to say is something like, “If it transpired that George Floyd was unvaccinated, would you still have supported the cop [Chauvin] who killed him?”
On Grant’s response:
Along_the_Wire Yes. Yes, I definitely would.
Notwithstanding my above point, I don’t know with any degree of certainty what he means here. On one hand, the confused question may partially explain it but if you read his posts just prior to it, he made a lot of facetious comments, so I would probably treat it with some caution as it was possibly a continuation of that and his general exasperation with what you were saying to him. If you are really using his comment in support of your argument here, you are really making a claim to be able to read minds as there is nothing else substantial enough that that you can rely on.
You (whatever) have completely misrepresented my framing here; which was rather: why treat George Floyd differently just because he is unvaxxed? Further to that, it is a perfectly valid question to then ask how much you really think that black lives matter, when you think that suddenly they really don’t matter if they just don’t take the vaccine (and there are a lot who haven’t). So in response to Mono’s post (which was speaking to something I hadn’t said), it is impossible to say that being unvaxxed and ‘black lives matter’ “aren’t mututally exclusive” when you’ve literally already said that whether a black life matters or not is contingent on whether they are vaxxed or not. My proposition 2.5 was just a follow-on point from this, because based on Grant’s logic a black life still matters if they’ve robbed a woman at gunpoint, but it stops mattering if they don’t get vaxxed. Hence in Grant’s morality not getting not getting vaccinated must be a worse crime than robbing a woman at gunpoint.
See my above comments, but again, perhaps you could point to any clear evidence where he said that he would have treated GF differently if it turned out he was unvaccinated? Everything he said elsewhere seems to suggest otherwise. Also, if you are using a counterfactual argument, you need to put forward a pretty compelling basis for your argument not just a prescient ability to know what is in his mind.
You seem to be saying elsewhere in the thread that people aren’t understanding what you are saying or are not reading what you are saying properly. There might be an element of that but you should also consider the possibility that you are simply wrong but don’t want to concede it (despite the weight of evidence against you) or that you are not explaining things very well and you may be misunderstanding what other people say to you because you are so committed to being right.
Please don’t take this the wrong way mate as I mean it with only good intentions but you seem to be getting into a lot of flame wars on this thread (are they still called that?) Sometimes it is better to accept you could be wrong and not argue everything like your life depends on it and be prepared to walk away from it. The thread about who had the biggest REG in 2021 seemed to be pretty conclusive feedback that you are on the wrong track. Personally, I would have considered that it was a strong message. FWIW, I think you are definitely one person on the board I would have a pint with, albeit we would probably disagree about a lot of things. You seem like a smart guy and I get that you like a debate (I do too) but scorching everything around you in pursuit of a point even when you probably know deep down that it is not right is not going to take you far.
