The real reason Republicans want to sabotage the investigation into Jan. 6

T. A. Gardner said:
I'm saying they're irrelevant. Their stories mean nothing on their own. Anecdote isn't evidence, and eyewitness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence there is.
Click to expand...

So they did not lie. Are you further accusing them of faking their injuries and defrauding the department by being on medical leave?
 
BidenPresident said:
What Republicans really don’t want to see illuminated is not just what happened that awful day, but the forces that produced it — the same forces that still threaten the stability of our democracy.

That’s because they see those forces — the anger and hatred, the rejection of the American system of resolving differences, the celebration of violence as a means of achieving political ends, the way social media has become such a potent instrument to spread and organize extremism — not as problems to be solved but as resources for achieving their own political goals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...icans-want-sabotage-investigation-into-jan-6/
Click to expand...

What Democrats really don’t want to see illuminated is not what happened that awful day, but the failure of the Speaker to have sufficient support for the Capitol police that day.

BidenPresident said:
the same forces that still threaten the stability of our democracy.
Click to expand...

Another patently stupid claim. Yeah, they came to the fight unarmed and the ONLY people who died that day were.......protestors.

One of the officers being questioned said there were 9,400 terrorists there. That alone illustrates what a sham this hearing is. Be less stupid. :palm:
 
BidenPresident said:
So they did not lie. Are you further accusing them of faking their injuries and defrauding the department by being on medical leave?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying they're irrelevant. Which part of that don't you get, or are you just going to continue to make a string of fallacy fallacies in the form of an ad hominem? Yes, that's what you're doing. You are ignoring my position, creating one out of thin air, then impugning me for taking a position I never took--fallacy fallacy in the form of an ad hominem.

What would be relevant here is that you show how the officer's testimony is relevant beyond being anecdote.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, I'm saying they're irrelevant. Which part of that don't you get, or are you just going to continue to make a string of fallacy fallacies in the form of an ad hominem? Yes, that's what you're doing. You are ignoring my position, creating one out of thin air, then impugning me for taking a position I never took--fallacy fallacy in the form of an ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Can't deal with your stupidity. Marking you as a terrorist and traitor.
 
BidenPresident said:
Can't deal with your stupidity. Marking you as a terrorist and traitor.
Click to expand...

Ah, straight to insults... How usual.

Can't demonstrate how these four (4) officer's testimony is relevant beyond being anecdote can you? You have four officers who were in the thick of this riot doing whatever and they had a view of all of a few feet in any direction most of the time. Like they really knew anything about what was going on. Their testimony is irrelevant.
 
BidenPresident said:
Irrelevant to what?
Click to expand...

To the investigation. Anecdote isn't evidence. You have four officers who's limited viewpoints to just what was happening immediately around them giving testimony. If the committee wanted real evidence they'd have had every officer submit a written account of their activities during this riot and then compiled a composite from that of what was going on. Add in the massive amount of video taken to corroborate these reports with actual video of what the officer was doing--since most are on video much of the time.

That would be meaningful. Trotting out just four officers cherry picked to give what amounts to sob stories of their supposedly harrowing involvement is irrelevant anecdote and meaningless.
 
BidenPresident said:
The investigation is trying to establish what happened. The experience of the officers is relevant. You clearly did not watch a second of their testimony.
Click to expand...

Then they should be doing what I just wrote, not taking a miniscule sample of police testimony in the form of eyewitness accounts. That's TOTALLY USELESS unless you are trying to whip up a political and emotional frenzy based on what's presented.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then they should be doing what I just wrote, not taking a miniscule sample of police testimony in the form of eyewitness accounts. That's TOTALLY USELESS unless you are trying to whip up a political and emotional frenzy based on what's presented.
Click to expand...

You watched none of the testimony. You are arguing against their testimony being heard. Not seeing a rationale.
 
BidenPresident said:
You watched none of the testimony. You are arguing against their testimony being heard. Not seeing a rationale.
Click to expand...

That's because you are completely clueless. Which part of getting ALL, EVERY officer's detailed statement about what they did during the riot and then using those hundreds of reports combined with the total of some 14,000 hours of video from surveillance, security, and other cameras that was taken during the riot and putting together a thorough report that documents what was going on didn't you understand?

The people on that committee don't want that. It'd be dry, lengthy, and boring. But it would show what happened. Instead, what they want is emotional, personal testimony that amounts to sob stories that evoke an emotional response that is totally irrelevant to getting at the truth. They want to whip the mob into a frenzy of hate against the rioters and nothing more. While that might be a bit hyperbolic, that's what the committee is doing so far.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, I'm saying they're irrelevant. Which part of that don't you get, or are you just going to continue to make a string of fallacy fallacies in the form of an ad hominem? Yes, that's what you're doing. You are ignoring my position, creating one out of thin air, then impugning me for taking a position I never took--fallacy fallacy in the form of an ad hominem.

What would be relevant here is that you show how the officer's testimony is relevant beyond being anecdote.
Click to expand...

This is actually a pivot fallacy (avoiding the subject by attempting to change the subject) and insult fallacies (ad hominem).
Obviously this officer's testimony is nothing but anecdotal. It is an opinion only. It is making up numbers in a court setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top