Being condescending to everyone in this thread doesn't make your arguments any more valid. You really are stangely emotionally invested in all of this. You throw around the accusation that people are not interpreting your arguments correctly, meanwhile you're playing these strange semantic games with everyone.
Semantic games of what? Having logical consistency in evaluating actions? Perhaps I should try your way of fallacies instead.
Because it's clear you're attempting to direct the discussion at my person. Whatever "supposed emotional investment" in this is irrelevant to what is actually being discussed.
The only accusations of people misinterpreting my arguments were based on facts. They were in fact misinterpreted and misrepresented. Pointing that out is part of a discussion.
It should be perfectly obvious to everyone that 'equating two actions' doesn't literally mean 'X = Y'. A kick is comparable to a punch, even though they involve different limbs. Equating the two doesn't need the addendum of 'the level of consequence of a kick compared to the level of consequence of a punch'.You can find whatever term for it you'd like, you are still comparing an act of violence to a joke, all whilst trying to defend the act of violence. You can twist yourself into a wordpretzel all you want.
And you can find whatever term you like, you're equating a slap to brutal violence just because both involve physical contact. Evaluating the consequences of actions is a logical step in determining how critical it is. But apparently you can just skip this entire process and just compare them based on the nature of the action and ignore everything else.
So are you actually suggesting that we ignore consequences of actions when evaluating these equations? Or are you saying that this should be done just in this particular case? And if it's the latter, what logical reason is there to do this?
Bold: If you cared to properly interpret what I said, you'd see that at no point I actually said or even implied any defense of the slap. From the very first line of my first comment in this thread, I made my point very clear. Yet you want to assume things about my "emotional investment" and what I'm "defending".
And my comparison between "words" and violence" was absurdly more logical than yours. Because I actually based it on something. Yet you presented no reason to ignore the consequences of the actions involved.
Are you even able to actually have a logical discussion or
On top of that, your entire argument is based on a series of assumptions. You don't know if or how much Chris Rock was physically hurt,
No news report anywhere made any statement in regards to Chris being injured. With this in mind, and considering how impactful slaps can be between 2 adults of similar physique, it's a fair assumption.
you don't know how he felt
Learn to read. I said he PROBABLY could feel that way. I'm already going on a worst case scenario in this regard. Because if Chris didn't feel anything, and if he wasn't injured, then that posed no consequence for him.
and you don't know if or how much Will Smith was emotionally hurt by the joke (especially considering the video footage of him laughing about it before his wife gave him a side eye).
Same point as above.
All we know for sure is that one person committed violence, and another person made a joke, and based on that we can conclude that one is worse than the other.
The "violence committed" is of a much lesser degree and impact than the level it is being treated as. That was the entire point, which was explicitly stated. Yet you, in your colossal stupidity, managed to miss it.
www.theguardian.com
