What does this prove, aside from making you look like you're crazy for trying to listen to squirrels. Yes we know it's fucked up that they won't release the tapes. Your post adds nothing to that discussion, though.
Well it's kind of hard to say one way or another when you haven't seen any evidence of anything. No clue why yall are down voting me, but feel free. If yall can't understand that I'm saying that we have no evidence to make any sort of claim about this, then idk what to tell you.
Am I saying the 911 call happened? No. Am I saying it didn't happen? No. I'm saying we need more evidence which is why I want those tapes to be released. If they don't exist, then we'll never see them. But goddamn, this thing happened a week ago. Give it a little time. I agree the transcripts prove nothing.
My point is you talking about squirrels does nothing. Nothing. Talk about the case, the killer, the victims, anything. I get why you posted it but it's hardly a proactive way to discuss this stuff.
Comparing squirrels speaking English to releasing the audio of a particular 911 call is beyond anything I could say that would violate rules 1, 4 and 10.
In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]
refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth.
Why not both?
Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict
I argue if I see something wrong. If that creates conflict, then that's just a consequence. If that resolves conflict, then that's just another consequence.
Tell us an example of some authority that you think we should all believe when they tell us something. What is the name of this individual(s) you trust?
25 comments
7 Apoplecticmiscreant 2016-06-21
Were any of these squirrels wearing a tiny yarmulke?
3 downtowne 2016-06-21
Are you sure they weren't cows I know cows are like that. It might be easy to confuse the two.
2 thoughtfulkitten 2016-06-21
This all sounds a little "nuts" to me lolol ;)
-2 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-06-21
This exact scenario has already been stated, and you're adding nothing to further any discussion on the subject.
6 austinitise 2016-06-21
Why are we not allowed to hear the tape?
Why?
Your proof that a 911 call was made is...transcript?
1 austinitise 2016-06-21
What are you talking about?
-3 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-06-21
What does this prove, aside from making you look like you're crazy for trying to listen to squirrels. Yes we know it's fucked up that they won't release the tapes. Your post adds nothing to that discussion, though.
3 austinitise 2016-06-21
But we know those tapes exist because...transcript?
2 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-06-21
Well it's kind of hard to say one way or another when you haven't seen any evidence of anything. No clue why yall are down voting me, but feel free. If yall can't understand that I'm saying that we have no evidence to make any sort of claim about this, then idk what to tell you.
Am I saying the 911 call happened? No. Am I saying it didn't happen? No. I'm saying we need more evidence which is why I want those tapes to be released. If they don't exist, then we'll never see them. But goddamn, this thing happened a week ago. Give it a little time. I agree the transcripts prove nothing.
My point is you talking about squirrels does nothing. Nothing. Talk about the case, the killer, the victims, anything. I get why you posted it but it's hardly a proactive way to discuss this stuff.
-4 Rockran 2016-06-21
pls no
5 austinitise 2016-06-21
You don't believe me? But I have the transcript!
-8 Rockran 2016-06-21
just no
Comparing squirrels speaking English to releasing the audio of a particular 911 call is beyond anything I could say that would violate rules 1, 4 and 10.
6 austinitise 2016-06-21
What proof do you have that a particular 911 call was even made at all?
Oh that's right....a transcript.
Oh...and the word of the authoriteez (theyr'e so trustworthy, right Rockran?).
Do you want our guns, Rockran? You want us unable to defend ourselves, Rockran?
-4 Rockran 2016-06-21
The same proof that you're a real human bean. You could be a bot for all I know.
So because the authorities say something, that means it's fake?
Yes. They sound fun. Please send all your guns to me.
3 zyklorpthehuman 2016-06-21
-2 Rockran 2016-06-21
Why not both?
I argue if I see something wrong. If that creates conflict, then that's just a consequence. If that resolves conflict, then that's just another consequence.
3 austinitise 2016-06-21
Because the authorities said something, that means it's true?
-2 Rockran 2016-06-21
Depends on who is saying what.
5 austinitise 2016-06-21
Tell us an example of some authority that you think we should all believe when they tell us something. What is the name of this individual(s) you trust?
Edit:
http://kfor.com/2016/03/21/ponca-city-dentist-arrested-on-sexual-battery-charges/
0 Rockran 2016-06-21
Dentistry.
0 [deleted] 2016-06-21
[removed]
1 Rockran 2016-06-21
wat
1 [deleted] 2016-06-21
[removed]
2 Rockran 2016-06-21
Sure.
I've got no idea what you're talking about, but go ahead.
1 Sabremesh 2016-06-21
Rules 2 and 4. Cut it out. Rockran is part of the furniture here and you have to learn how to deal with him.
1 austinitise 2016-06-21
Makes sense to me.
1 ifltrdby 2016-06-21
Seems i have seen this somewhere else today allready. I upped you on both.