6 ms·

> You are doing precisely what you claimed to want to critique others for - you are rejecting the facts to try to turn Debs into whatever you want him to be. O

> You are doing precisely what you claimed to want to critique others for - you are rejecting the facts to try to turn Debs into whatever you want him to be. On the contrary, I embraced the facts which you linked--it's just that the facts which you linked don't say what you claim they do. I would encourage anyone reading this conversation to click the link somenameforme posted and see that in fact, the link says what I'm saying it does. > Debs lead strikes which turned into riots, resulting in massive property damage and numerous deaths, multiple times. Did Debs incite that violence? You can juxtapose him next to violence all you want, but that's not evidence that did anything to cause it. > This is a fact. You trying to spin him into being some sort of dedicated believer in peaceful protest is your opinion, and a poorly supported one at that. Well, we can agree to disagree about whether the quote you linked supports my opinion well or poorly. But I don't feel that I need to support my opinion better than I have, given your total absence of any support for your opinion. If you choose to post any evidence which actually supports your opinion I'll be happy to do more thorough research (and admit I'm wrong, if I am wrong). The fact is, Eugene Debs did write to the strikers, "Commit no violence." If you want to ignore that fact so you can pretend he's some sort of terrist, it might have been easier if you hadn't linked a page with that very quote in it. :)

somenameforme 3y ago
I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. In any case, we're in a old thread buried deep, this chat is between just you, I, and bots. And once again I don't think you believe what you are saying. A simple example would be looping back to the original discussion - Trump. These were Trump's final Tweets (which were oddly enough censored, though can now be viewed plainly since Musk restored his account): --- - "I am asking everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" - "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - During his speech prior to the riots he also said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today." --- So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things?
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. You seem to be under the delusion that if you only state facts and never state your opinion, no one will notice that you're arguing for an opinion. Yes, you're doing a good job of stating a very small percentage of the facts which supports the opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence. You haven't explicitly stated that it is your opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence, but given you're only accepting facts that supports that opinion, I think it's pretty obvious what your opinion is. Whether you state your opinion or not, it's obvious that you have an opinion, and it's obvious what your opinion is. And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing that you have an opinion: I have an opinion too. Everyone has opinions. Bias is unavoidable. My only objection is that it's absurd that you're trying to present yourself as having no bias. > [Trump tweets encouraging peace] > So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? If those Tweets were the only things in evidence, I'd be happy to say that Trump is firmly a believer in peaceful protest. Those Tweets aren't the only things in evidence, though[1]. > Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things? It's somehow different because there's more evidence than just those tweets[1]. If there's more evidence that Debs was a proponent of violence, I'd be happy to consider it, but so far all you've presented is that he was proximal to violence. Believe it or not, I'm actually not 100% convinced that Trump was involved in the January 6 attacks--simply because I am aware there's a lot of evidence I haven't looked at. It hardly matters--there's plenty of other reasons to think he's a horrible human being--but I'd prefer not to form opinions when I know I haven't looked at most of the evidence. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-final-report https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-fi...
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1] "Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1] "In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1] "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2] "Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

somenameforme 3y ago

I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. In any case, we're in a old thread buried deep, this chat is between just you, I, and bots. And once again I don't think you believe what you are saying. A simple example would be looping back to the original discussion - Trump. These were Trump's final Tweets (which were oddly enough censored, though can now be viewed plainly since Musk restored his account): --- - "I am asking everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" - "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - During his speech prior to the riots he also said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today." --- So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things?

kerkeslager 3y ago
> I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. You seem to be under the delusion that if you only state facts and never state your opinion, no one will notice that you're arguing for an opinion. Yes, you're doing a good job of stating a very small percentage of the facts which supports the opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence. You haven't explicitly stated that it is your opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence, but given you're only accepting facts that supports that opinion, I think it's pretty obvious what your opinion is. Whether you state your opinion or not, it's obvious that you have an opinion, and it's obvious what your opinion is. And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing that you have an opinion: I have an opinion too. Everyone has opinions. Bias is unavoidable. My only objection is that it's absurd that you're trying to present yourself as having no bias. > [Trump tweets encouraging peace] > So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? If those Tweets were the only things in evidence, I'd be happy to say that Trump is firmly a believer in peaceful protest. Those Tweets aren't the only things in evidence, though[1]. > Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things? It's somehow different because there's more evidence than just those tweets[1]. If there's more evidence that Debs was a proponent of violence, I'd be happy to consider it, but so far all you've presented is that he was proximal to violence. Believe it or not, I'm actually not 100% convinced that Trump was involved in the January 6 attacks--simply because I am aware there's a lot of evidence I haven't looked at. It hardly matters--there's plenty of other reasons to think he's a horrible human being--but I'd prefer not to form opinions when I know I haven't looked at most of the evidence. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-final-report https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-fi...
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1] "Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1] "In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1] "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2] "Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike