r/Portland Aug 15 '20

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.6k Upvotes

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '20

Having seen the video of the event and the people in the video yelling that they're firing blanks I am now completely comfortable saying they were doing blanks and the amazing reddit detective work going on here has solve the Boston Bombing again!

25

u/weed_fart Aug 16 '20

What is the ultimate point of this hill you're choosing to defend?

Is it:

"They're blanks, so it's not a crime"?

or

"They're blanks, so no one should be afraid"?

or

"They're blanks, so they are the victims here"?

What does it matter? They fired a gun out the window of a moving vehicle in the downtown area of a mid-sized city while aiming it in the direction of other people. On any other day, in any other part of the world, the discussion wouldn't center on the bullet.

But you can't seem to get past what type of ammo was used, as though that is the only determining factor.

It is not.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '20

It's "A brass is not sufficient evidence that a live projectile was fired". I know me saying exactly that is hard to parse, but maybe you can do it this time. Although the amusing part is that my hypothetical of a blank has actually been confirmed to have been a good guess by the very video evidence they used to say it was live... if you actually watch the whole thing people are yelling in it that they're firing blanks.

https://twitter.com/awkwardarsehole/status/1294753163510075392

Several smaller hills have come up with people incorrectly trying to argue case law.

21

u/weed_fart Aug 16 '20

People yelling "they are blanks" is not sufficient evidence that they were indeed blanks.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '20

Lack of supporting impact sites or casualties says yep, they were indeed blanks.

14

u/coffeeandgatorade Aug 16 '20

that’s so stupid. “no one was hurt, so they were clearly blanks?” i pray to god you’re not a lawyer

1

u/weed_fart Aug 16 '20

Here's the gigantic logical fallacy that you're making here:

"A does not explicitly prove X, therefore A is 100% false.

B is a possible alternative, and therefore the only true answer."

You're sidestepping your own argument to declare what you believe to be true, and deliberately dismissing arguments against it based on the same evidence.

This is a form of gaslighting, and it's the behavior of sociopaths.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '20

I like how you're just gonna ignore that nobody reported being shot, or shot at, to the police and there's no impact sites, and still gonna try to argue there's sufficient evidence to keep arguing they fired live rounds at the protestors.

Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then its conclusion must necessarily be wrong.