Please, go, find any evidence of mass shootings carried out by basically random, deranged individuals in the USSR, with their own firearms,.or firearms that they somehow obtained in a personal capacity, for private use.
Genuinely, if you can find anything about that, I’d love to hear about it.
But you can’t just imply/assert something happened with literally 0 evidence, and flip the burden of proof into an assbackwards state.
Your opponent did then provide the evidence you asked for and then you dismissed it. A proper play would’ve meant admitting that these events did happen after being presented evidence. You could’ve carried your point afterwards and talked about the difference in scale, but you undermined your own argument by dismissing theirs.
I think that’s like a ten yard penalty and a time out, take a breather and come back working together on finding a good point through dialog instead of fighting, seems like you could reach each other if you wanted.
I then did the thing, went forward with the rest of the discussion, considering the evidence they presented, referring to it, and making comparisons with it.
How could I discuss and make quantitative comparisons of that set of events to others… without implicitly, obviously, accepting it as existing and valid?
Was I supposed to stop and profusely congratulate them for linking a wiki page?
You’ve essentially penalized me for not ‘admitting those events did happen’ in an undefined yet apparently specific manner you find appropriate.
I acknowledged its existence by contending with it.
Further… they said 0 publicized shootings.
Go look at the references for the shootings … many of them are contemporaneous coverage in some kind publicized media, at least one had public a memorial service occur to commemerate the victims, not long after the shootings.
So… no. They did actually prove their claim. They in fact explicitly disproved it.
All that is required to disprove a claim of 0 publicized shootings is… a single publicized shooting, contemporaneously published if we assume that as a reasonable contextual specificied definition.
And… they… provided that evidence, themselves.
Beyond that, the initial claim itself is still just a reversal of how burden of proof works, a fallacious approach to discourse.
I’m beginning to think you’re not really a referee, in fact… you’re nothing but a corny shit poster.
=P
… but I actually can provide non self defeating evidence of that seemingly baseless assertion.
I’m just choosing not to, because that would seem to me to be excessively mean.
Ok, so you don’t have a discussion about how guns should work in a society.
You just want to use a dubious rhetorical tactic to assert that genocide is bad.
Yes, we, we all agree that genocide is bad, amongst the vast majority of people with consciences.
This isn’t generally a point worth making, its virtue signalling.
Does… communal firearm training… necessarily result in genocide?
Is that what has happened in every society that has at least a temporary period of mandatory military service for broad swathes of society?
I’m trying to have a discussion, you just want to keep avoiding that discussion, and keep reasserting a point I have already accepted… because that point is so obvious it barely needs to be stated.
Again: I agree with you that genocide is bad. I don’t support or endorse any of the pogroms or purges or manufactured famines or gulag archipelagos of the USSR, those are all atrocities.
But, what do you mean you will shun any power that has a basis in genocide?
Like, you’ll never step foot in the USA? Or Canada? Or nearly any Western country? You’ll boycott all companies that currently, actively participate in genocide?
Or are you juat saying you think genocide is icky and bad?
Something in between?
Something else?
Also I think you’re the the first person on lemmy who’s called me a tankie, which is funny to me because I’ve been banned from large sections of ml and hexbear for pointing out that the Pooh Bear Xi Jinping meme actually originated in China, and is actually a homegrown symbol of mockery of and resistance against Xi and the PRC, not a racist meme used by Westerners to attack China and Chinese people…
…generally I’m the one getting into arguments with actual tankies, who will actually defend some of those genocides and other horrific acts done in the name of some vanguard party or what not.
But I guess to you, tankie is just anyone you perceive as being mean, when the topic of discussion is the USSR.
Ok then if you can’t take things I’m good humor, I’ll say it directly. You’re acting like an ass and flying off the handle, whether you’re right or not, and maybe need to fucking chill.
I did take things in good humor, that’s why I made a joke at the end.
I’m sorry if you can’t handle having your ideas being directly interrogated amd critiqued, maybe you shouldn’t be a self appointed referee of debates, maybe you shouldn’t have inserted yourself into this situation for invalid reasons, maybe its not polite to do that, and you should chill out a bit?
Sorry mate, I had to call in the reff
You are quoted as saying
Your opponent did then provide the evidence you asked for and then you dismissed it. A proper play would’ve meant admitting that these events did happen after being presented evidence. You could’ve carried your point afterwards and talked about the difference in scale, but you undermined your own argument by dismissing theirs.
I think that’s like a ten yard penalty and a time out, take a breather and come back working together on finding a good point through dialog instead of fighting, seems like you could reach each other if you wanted.
I did admit the evidence existed.
In the first couple of sentences.
Did you miss those, ref?
I then did the thing, went forward with the rest of the discussion, considering the evidence they presented, referring to it, and making comparisons with it.
How could I discuss and make quantitative comparisons of that set of events to others… without implicitly, obviously, accepting it as existing and valid?
Was I supposed to stop and profusely congratulate them for linking a wiki page?
You’ve essentially penalized me for not ‘admitting those events did happen’ in an undefined yet apparently specific manner you find appropriate.
I acknowledged its existence by contending with it.
Further… they said 0 publicized shootings.
Go look at the references for the shootings … many of them are contemporaneous coverage in some kind publicized media, at least one had public a memorial service occur to commemerate the victims, not long after the shootings.
So… no. They did actually prove their claim. They in fact explicitly disproved it.
All that is required to disprove a claim of 0 publicized shootings is… a single publicized shooting, contemporaneously published if we assume that as a reasonable contextual specificied definition.
And… they… provided that evidence, themselves.
Beyond that, the initial claim itself is still just a reversal of how burden of proof works, a fallacious approach to discourse.
I’m beginning to think you’re not really a referee, in fact… you’re nothing but a corny shit poster.
=P
… but I actually can provide non self defeating evidence of that seemingly baseless assertion.
I’m just choosing not to, because that would seem to me to be excessively mean.
Well it’s clear you’re not here to reason so I’m just gonna let you be a tankie
it also really is that simple
just don’t support genocide
don’t support powers that genocide
don’t support Israel, Russia, the USA, the Reich, the USSR, or any genocide-friendly power
show me proof that any power has basis in genocide and I will shun it
because that’s what normal people should do
genocide is bad and we should avoid supporting it
this is literally the most justified take ever and you’re still arguing against it
deleted by creator
Ok, so you don’t have a discussion about how guns should work in a society.
You just want to use a dubious rhetorical tactic to assert that genocide is bad.
Yes, we, we all agree that genocide is bad, amongst the vast majority of people with consciences.
This isn’t generally a point worth making, its virtue signalling.
Does… communal firearm training… necessarily result in genocide?
Is that what has happened in every society that has at least a temporary period of mandatory military service for broad swathes of society?
I’m trying to have a discussion, you just want to keep avoiding that discussion, and keep reasserting a point I have already accepted… because that point is so obvious it barely needs to be stated.
Again: I agree with you that genocide is bad. I don’t support or endorse any of the pogroms or purges or manufactured famines or gulag archipelagos of the USSR, those are all atrocities.
But, what do you mean you will shun any power that has a basis in genocide?
Like, you’ll never step foot in the USA? Or Canada? Or nearly any Western country? You’ll boycott all companies that currently, actively participate in genocide?
Or are you juat saying you think genocide is icky and bad?
Something in between?
Something else?
Also I think you’re the the first person on lemmy who’s called me a tankie, which is funny to me because I’ve been banned from large sections of ml and hexbear for pointing out that the Pooh Bear Xi Jinping meme actually originated in China, and is actually a homegrown symbol of mockery of and resistance against Xi and the PRC, not a racist meme used by Westerners to attack China and Chinese people…
…generally I’m the one getting into arguments with actual tankies, who will actually defend some of those genocides and other horrific acts done in the name of some vanguard party or what not.
But I guess to you, tankie is just anyone you perceive as being mean, when the topic of discussion is the USSR.
Ok then if you can’t take things I’m good humor, I’ll say it directly. You’re acting like an ass and flying off the handle, whether you’re right or not, and maybe need to fucking chill.
I did take things in good humor, that’s why I made a joke at the end.
I’m sorry if you can’t handle having your ideas being directly interrogated amd critiqued, maybe you shouldn’t be a self appointed referee of debates, maybe you shouldn’t have inserted yourself into this situation for invalid reasons, maybe its not polite to do that, and you should chill out a bit?
If that’s what you call I joke I feel pity for the few people you’ve interacted with at parties.
You’re still being an ass, so stop throwing a tantrum when someone said you were wrong and touch grass.