This is the correct standard. If both parties agree that the thing is wrong, but one is calling out the hypocrisy of the other, then a "but 'your guy'" statement is admissible. But if it's intended as a justification, then no. Then it just descends into once a wrong has been committed by any side, it's justifiable by the other invoking the right of "but 'your guy'".
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Beer Virus V
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
This is the correct standard. If both parties agree that the thing is wrong, but one is calling out the hypocrisy of the other, then a "but 'your guy'" statement is admissible. But if it's intended as a justification, then no. Then it just descends into once a wrong has been committed by any side, it's justifiable by the other invoking the right of "but 'your guy'".
If you're saying the other side didn't give a **** when their guy did it, so stop giving a **** when my guy does it, it sounds like you're using the former to justify the latter. So my question is, why do you let the other side set the passes for your side's standards? Does your side have standards? Or are they simply whatever the other side does?
Now do this for the media.
More like chemical or biological weapons. We both think they're wrong. Should your side deploy them, the gloves are off. No first use of nukes is like that also, going down that road gets me to 'weapons free'
The media are full of hypocrites. They can point out the sins of the other, but they can't point out those same sins when it's their own. Which probably means that they didn't really give a **** when it was Trump. They only gave a **** because it was Trump. Their guy doing it, okey dokey. **********s.
It's one thing to say it's wrong but justifiable for one's own survival. Then you aren't relying on the other side's sins to justify your own. So let's say it this way. It's okay for Trump to do quid-pro-quos because Biden did it. Is that a valid justification? I think it's fine to use "but 'your guy'" to call out hypocrisy, to accuse the other side of not really giving a **** about the thing they they complained about your guy doing. For example, they didn't really give a flying **** about Trump's supposed quid pro quo because they didn't give a **** when their guy did it. They just cared about accusing Trump of something untoward.
Then jump in with some pithy or erudite comment to get the thread back on track. If you think we're just here to entertain you and no contribution is necessary then you're bound to be disappointed
Okay. On topic.
Why do we give a **** about comparing the percent positive across populations? That's going to vary across locations, according to many factors other than the true percentage of a given population that has covid. And that's what the percent positive is supposed to represent. In bat **** hysterical areas, people will be more obsessed with being tested and a higher portion of the population who doesn't have covid might go get tested. And so that community might tend to have a lower percent positive than an area that has people who tend to go get tested when they come down with symptoms that are associated with covid. I suppose from area to area, to get an idea how overtaxed their health care facilities might get, they could look at their specific area's percent positive and how it correlates to beds.
Why do we give a **** about comparing the percent positive across populations? That's going to vary across locations, according to many factors other than the true percentage of a given population that has covid. And that's what the percent positive is supposed to represent. In bat **** hysterical areas, people will be more obsessed with being tested and a higher portion of the population who doesn't have covid might go get tested. And so that community might tend to have a lower percent positive than an area that has people who tend to go get tested when they come down with symptoms that are associated with covid. I suppose from area to area, to get an idea how overtaxed their health care facilities might get, they could look at their specific area's percent positive and how it correlates to beds.
It is even more than that. Their guy did it so they must accuse the other guy of doing it even though he didn't. This strategy has worked over and over because the media joyfully goes along with it. They can make the false accusation a much bigger deal than the real thing.
You shouldn't say that sort of thing, it just encourages us
I might chastise us for being unable to entertain two thoughts at the same time - the thread topic and the point we wish to make. Hardly the stuff of brilliance, you know
I'm not entering in the "Smartest person in the Room" discussion. I'm way out classed.
I think we were trying to resolve the question of "but 'your guy'" as a justification for my guy. And as Foz said, it's at least remotely related to this thread.
- Status
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Funny Political Picture/Video Thread Part 9** The other side is still making it easy!- Latest: DeadeyeChrista'sdad