Problem with this logic is that the stuff on the show is like their caricature personality. Its like when they laugh at a joke they have already heard before or whatever. Because overall, even though the tone could get serious, for the most part they would try make it light as its a comedy show.
I laughed at this attack and Ants attack but if it were me, I wouldn't be laughing.
If you want to take this approach you need to use words from his off air stuff (off Sirius, which lets be honest, shouldn't be hard to find) otherwise this is just a deductive fallacy (actually in formal logic, you are actually incurring 3 deductive fallacies by my count) and that is not good reasoning. Obviously you don't care but you should try keep the bar high when you publish content or perhaps it could be used against you at some point (by smarter people than you), as you well know (since you play that game).
My point wasn't really about the fact that Anthony is laughing about it
I'm afraid you're really showing your lack of deductive reasoning on this one too. Re-read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about Anthony laughing. I was talking about me laughing, its called an analogy. It was used to paint a point (as they usually are).
Having said that, I did read your post and all the same points about logic and deduction still apply. If his commentary of this was on his Twitter or LFTC, you might be able to piece together something but otherwise your approach on this one is lacking adequate reasoning (but lets be honest, the emotional YouTube audience you are seeking to exploit will not care or know to point any of this out).
If you want to play the game that way, just play one of the times he said the N word on air or something, its shorter to listen to and will have the same affect on your desired audience (who have a shitty CPM rate BTW, so maybe set your sights higher?).
If you are looking for off air stuff where he called white people savages or animals, look for the commentary on white kids who like rap, I remember seeing that stuff.
I completely understand that you'd like to drop industry jargon like CPM's
We are talking about monetizing content on the internet. CPM is an everyday phrase, I was being very careful to use simple direct words and sentences specifically for you.
and repeatedly allude to your imagined superior ability of deductive reasoning in an attempt to obfuscate the clear double standard of Anthony's characterization of the same exact behavior by women of two different races
Come on Wayne Arthur. I was keeping emotion out of it. I was trying to reason with you. I could have presumed you weren't capable of reason, but I didn't. And this is the response?
Now the same stuff I told you about Anthony applies to you and me. If you are capable of it, explain your reasoning, isn't that what reasonable people do? I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was trying to be civil. I was attempting to be respectful. I didn't care about the right or wrong of Anthony or the lady, I was attempting to use logic with you, why does that offend you? I think that says more about you than it does me. Do you have a chip on your shoulder about something? Do you find civil discourse condescending?
As for everything else in your post, well, I was purposefully avoiding that, I don't think emotional thinking yields rational results but if you want to go there:
Black woman attacks man for photographing her, she's a savage
Well, it is uncivil (by definition) and illegal to attack people (it is also the definition of the word savage, but you think that is a racially loaded term so lets avoid it). The only justification for violence in our societies is to protect yourself or others from violence. She should use better methods to express herself (so should you). I would also love to point out the fact that in every Magna-Carta based society in the world, you have no expectation of privacy in public so if you are making the argument she was justified, I can assure you, no judge would agree (and in law, the justification of action is always interpreted from the angle of what a reasonable person would think). Its weak logic, I don't know a simpler word to use to explain it (sorry).
See Opie on the radio isn't Opie in real life. Anthony on the radio isn't Anthony in real life. It is them, don't let me confuse you, but it is a filtered and skewed version of themselves. Now I am flat out saying, Anthony has said many racist things, so I was just giving you advice so you could make your case to smart people as well because we all know there is a case there. I even tried to help you uncover content that might make your case in a more coherent manner.
talking in circles about deductive reasoning, makes you seem super duper smart!
Perhaps not knowing how to use reason to make an argument and being emotional with your thinking makes you seem... not so smart? That was my point from the beginning and you must imagine if some neutral reasonable person comes here and reads all of this, that might be what they take away. Also, making a point about reasoning and deduction and re-iterating it hardly counts as talking in circles.
You're better than this, at least, I hope you are.
Why do you put the word animal in scare quotes? Do you deny she, you and I are animals? You are a Homo-Sapien, a species in the Kingdom of Animalia, all species in the kingdom Animalia are animals. To refute that is to refute science and to refute science on a computer connected to the internet probably means you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
So Wayne Arthur (I'm putting that in there so when Google indexes this, it will be searchable with your name, just in-case it is your real name), I want to say, I can't agree with Anthony, and I don't know you, but I would bet real money that you are not a smart person at all. You refuse reason, you refute classical definitions of words to make emotional pandering points and you refute science. These are aspects of your character and should your name be real, I think it is important any employers and partners know the quality of your thoughts, if they seek out your name.
6 comments
3 [deleted] 2014-07-08
link is to private video
1 [deleted] 2014-07-08
[deleted]
1 KennethFresno 2014-07-08
Anthony wasn't the one attacked by this woman.
1 fuckjeah 2014-07-08
Problem with this logic is that the stuff on the show is like their caricature personality. Its like when they laugh at a joke they have already heard before or whatever. Because overall, even though the tone could get serious, for the most part they would try make it light as its a comedy show.
I laughed at this attack and Ants attack but if it were me, I wouldn't be laughing.
If you want to take this approach you need to use words from his off air stuff (off Sirius, which lets be honest, shouldn't be hard to find) otherwise this is just a deductive fallacy (actually in formal logic, you are actually incurring 3 deductive fallacies by my count) and that is not good reasoning. Obviously you don't care but you should try keep the bar high when you publish content or perhaps it could be used against you at some point (by smarter people than you), as you well know (since you play that game).
1 [deleted] 2014-07-08
[deleted]
1 fuckjeah 2014-07-08
I'm afraid you're really showing your lack of deductive reasoning on this one too. Re-read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about Anthony laughing. I was talking about me laughing, its called an analogy. It was used to paint a point (as they usually are).
Having said that, I did read your post and all the same points about logic and deduction still apply. If his commentary of this was on his Twitter or LFTC, you might be able to piece together something but otherwise your approach on this one is lacking adequate reasoning (but lets be honest, the emotional YouTube audience you are seeking to exploit will not care or know to point any of this out).
If you want to play the game that way, just play one of the times he said the N word on air or something, its shorter to listen to and will have the same affect on your desired audience (who have a shitty CPM rate BTW, so maybe set your sights higher?).
If you are looking for off air stuff where he called white people savages or animals, look for the commentary on white kids who like rap, I remember seeing that stuff.
1 [deleted] 2014-07-08
[deleted]
1 fuckjeah 2014-07-08
We are talking about monetizing content on the internet. CPM is an everyday phrase, I was being very careful to use simple direct words and sentences specifically for you.
Come on Wayne Arthur. I was keeping emotion out of it. I was trying to reason with you. I could have presumed you weren't capable of reason, but I didn't. And this is the response?
Now the same stuff I told you about Anthony applies to you and me. If you are capable of it, explain your reasoning, isn't that what reasonable people do? I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was trying to be civil. I was attempting to be respectful. I didn't care about the right or wrong of Anthony or the lady, I was attempting to use logic with you, why does that offend you? I think that says more about you than it does me. Do you have a chip on your shoulder about something? Do you find civil discourse condescending?
As for everything else in your post, well, I was purposefully avoiding that, I don't think emotional thinking yields rational results but if you want to go there:
Well, it is uncivil (by definition) and illegal to attack people (it is also the definition of the word savage, but you think that is a racially loaded term so lets avoid it). The only justification for violence in our societies is to protect yourself or others from violence. She should use better methods to express herself (so should you). I would also love to point out the fact that in every Magna-Carta based society in the world, you have no expectation of privacy in public so if you are making the argument she was justified, I can assure you, no judge would agree (and in law, the justification of action is always interpreted from the angle of what a reasonable person would think). Its weak logic, I don't know a simpler word to use to explain it (sorry).
See Opie on the radio isn't Opie in real life. Anthony on the radio isn't Anthony in real life. It is them, don't let me confuse you, but it is a filtered and skewed version of themselves. Now I am flat out saying, Anthony has said many racist things, so I was just giving you advice so you could make your case to smart people as well because we all know there is a case there. I even tried to help you uncover content that might make your case in a more coherent manner.
Perhaps not knowing how to use reason to make an argument and being emotional with your thinking makes you seem... not so smart? That was my point from the beginning and you must imagine if some neutral reasonable person comes here and reads all of this, that might be what they take away. Also, making a point about reasoning and deduction and re-iterating it hardly counts as talking in circles.
You're better than this, at least, I hope you are.
1 fuckjeah 2014-07-08
Why do you put the word animal in scare quotes? Do you deny she, you and I are animals? You are a Homo-Sapien, a species in the Kingdom of Animalia, all species in the kingdom Animalia are animals. To refute that is to refute science and to refute science on a computer connected to the internet probably means you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
So Wayne Arthur (I'm putting that in there so when Google indexes this, it will be searchable with your name, just in-case it is your real name), I want to say, I can't agree with Anthony, and I don't know you, but I would bet real money that you are not a smart person at all. You refuse reason, you refute classical definitions of words to make emotional pandering points and you refute science. These are aspects of your character and should your name be real, I think it is important any employers and partners know the quality of your thoughts, if they seek out your name.