LogFAQs > #945801008

Wanded posted...

@Clench281 Well, would you look at that, seems i was right and this individual is blm, i personally would also consider him antifa but you and your leftist pals here think antifa is an "idea" so i wouldn't be able to convince you of that.

Wanded posted...

Then i said that this is the second right wing guy shot to death by blm/antifa in the last month

Wanded posted...

so what i said is true, meanwhile the info you supplied turned up to be false

Wanded posted...

According to your standard which is "you must apologize for saying something untrue even if the source got it wrong" you need to apologize as well.

I never have an issue with people sharing an opinion or fact that is supported by the best evidence at the time. That's the only way to go about living our lives as informed citizens. Did you do that? Nope. You seem to be under the false impression that spreading unverified assumptions as true fact is okay if it later turns out to be correct. This is obviously wrong--spreading unverified assumptions as fact is inarguably harmful for society because those assumptions often turn out to be incorrect. You shared an unverified assumption that not only lacked evidence, but contradicted the evidence at the time. You can't retroactively claim that you acted in good faith no matter what new information comes out. You could claim that 'your intuition was correct' (I'd still say the jury is still out on that one) but at least you'd be tempering your statements as assumptions.

As for the nuance of the new information that came to light. Arguments had been circulating that the shooter was "part of" BLM/Antifa meaning he was specifically part of the counter-protest, making the conscious choice to go while looking to start trouble. So far, this is unsupported. What we know is that he was there for his job. We don't know how his assignments are determined. If he had the option to choose this assignment, that would lend support. If he was assigned it with no choice, and just showed up to work? Then he didn't have much choice in the matter of attending.

You're arguing as if you presume I'm here to defend this guy for political reasons. Again, unlike you, I'm only interested in using the best information we have available to learn the truth. I neither condemned nor endorsed him or his actions. All I criticized was your use of unverified assumptions (which, again, has not changed). If you want to say that we learned he acted without a license and he was armed when he was not supposed to, I would agree with you (though that doesn't change that he was in fact contracted for security, and seems he's been working in such a position for the last year).

---

Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be.
And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me.