In a way I think both the police and the kid at UF were both wrong. I don't think the should have escorted him out of there, he did have a right to free speech, but since they did escort him out of there I really don't think he should have made such a scene. He acted like an attention whore, and it was annoying. They both have there pro's and con's really. As for the whole taser thing, I think it was just the police's last desperate attempt to control him, and I think he deserved it for how ridiculous he was acting. He could've handle it more maturely. The police also could've allowed him to answer his question though, I mean Kerry WAS willing to answer it but they just cut in. *shrugs*
kerry was trying to swerve around it, the way i see it. he was trying to act as if nothing was wrong.
That is like saying you shouldn't care if a police officer shoots you in the arm because they could have shot you in the head, and have done so to others in the past.
No, it is a fine analogy. Just because there are worse situations out there and possible, it does not mean that we should not care about the less negative ones. That is how such things end up becoming "okay".
I don't think you get this whole "analogy" thing. You use the super-violent, implausible, yet infallible example to try and prove a point when in reality it has little relevance to the actual original point. Because in reality, who's going to argue against getting shot? Taser: Harmless, temporary incapacitation. Gunshot: Harmful, permanent damage, potential for death. Too extreme.
Agreed. You have to keep analogies firmly based in reality. Who the fuck asks you "where do you want to be shot?"
I think you are missing the point. If a certain augmentative form is plausible, it has to work in all situations. Logic doesn't sometimes work, and sometimes not. Either the form is valid or it isn't. If the form is invalid, while it does not mean your point is wrong, it does mean that that particular argument is not a valid support of it. An extreme example is meant to make obvious the flaw in the form of your argument. It does this. You might be right, but at this point all you have to really support your point of view is your opinion, and the opinions of others that think like you. EDIT: also, I am not saying I proved you wrong, just that you have yet to prove yourself right.
1)Yes I suppose I got a bit too excited about that, sorry. 2)No I suppose not (and if Kerry would have answered the question he probably would have denied it) but that still doesn't explain the tasering.
How can you refer to an outlying, irregular, implausible situation to try and poke holes in the logic of an everyday occurrence? Again, this is a grasp at straws, and I'm not the only one who's called you out on this. What exactly is my argument? I believe that's the question you should be asking yourself. You're assuming that I'm saying that if you warn someone before you do something and they don't react, that it's fine to follow through with the action, when in fact it was not what I meant. Now I've already addressed this, and I don't like to talk in circles. This is a waste of time if you're going to continue to use superlatives to put across a point. There is no right or wrong in this. I think you've got the wrong impression. My opinion is that they took the right corrective action. You think it was excessive. Okay, that's fine. But the way in which you choose to prove your points, by using outlying situations as some sort of basis, is flawed and highly inconclusive. And again, I'm not the only one who has called you on this.
It's kind of hard to say there is a "flaw" in someone's argument, when the situation is so subjective. The truth of the matter is opinions vary on the subject, which completely overrules the idea of a bullet-proof argument. The way you use extreme examples to write off this situation does come across as a desperate act. Anybody can sit here and use some off-the-wall situation to invalidate an argument, but it's completely unjustified and takes a simple case of "should they or shouldn't they" situation and turns it into some idealogical battle. Once again, this situation is completely subjective, and debating over trivial plausibilities gets us nowhere. No one's right, no one's wrong, it's just an opinion.
It is odd how I outright said I was not trying to prove my points, yet you ignore that and tell me that I didn't actually prove them. Of course it is inconclusive, as I didn't try to conclude anything other than the fact that saying they warned the person made it okay is not a valid justification. You seemed to say that because he was warned, he deserved what he got. I just said that a warning is not enough to provide justification. I used an example to show this. This is a subjective manner, yes, but you can still back up your opinion with something other than...more opinion. You seem to be relying on an appeal to popularity (by telling me multiple times how other people agree with you)- something that is a logical fallacy. If you are now saying that you do not believe the warning is the reason for the justification, than I have no qualms with you. When you originally wrote it, I got the impression that you were using it however. That is why I disagreed. Not to prove that the tasering was wrong (I think it is, but am not trying to prove that here), but to show that the argument (I at least thought) you made was invalid. I am sorry if this is all the product of me misunderstanding your position.
Yep, that's pretty much what it all boils down to. On a lighter note: http://gocrazydonttazeme.ytmnd.com/