LogFAQs > #962083515

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be?

I don't know how you don't interpret it the way I interpreted it. I think .most people would interpret the same thing. Most likely, he meant to arrest the ones who are non-peaceful. And I believe he even mentioned that later on. If you are interpreting it differently, that sounds like a you problem. But I think you're just pretending to not understand what he said. To most others, it makes sense that he was most likely saying to arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I think you actually understand that, but are pretending to be dumb, and saying you don't understand it...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave.

Again, a you problem. I've explained it enough that a child could understand it. So I don't know what else I can do to help you understand a basic conversation...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested.
He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too.
Have I got these details correct so far?

What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested.

You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his.

He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones. That's your made up delusion... So, no. You have not gotten the details correct so far...

And it wrong to think that just because the non-peaceful protesters get a free pass just because there were in a protest where most protesters were peaceful... That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works... The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested... And adjl (you seem to have trouble with spelling his name even though it's only 4 letters) is correct that it can be very hard to actually find them... And it was implied that they should be arrested for being non-peaceful. But I understand you have trouble with basic concepts like implicationa and context clues...

His quote was never to address what you said, but to correct it since it was wrong... Which I mentioned multiple times already...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other.

Because his post was correcting you post. As I've mentioned multiple times. You said, "as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which was incorrect. He said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is correct. You're saying to not arrest anyone, even if they're non-peaceful. He's saying not do that. And implying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. They're both talking about who to not arrest. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. They are talking about literally the same thing. You seem to have trouble seeing that, though...