Current Events > Do you think it's right Ariana Grande has cancelled the rest of her concerts?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What a coward, she's letting those scumbags win.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darmik posted...

This seems overly harsh. I'd compare it more to someone taking time off to deal with a personal tragedy. She deserves to take some time off and when she's ready her fans will be excited to see her.

I'm not saying she doesn't "Deserve" it, it's her tour and her life, she can do whatever she wants. It would be insane for anyone to say otherwise.

And I fully understand her reasoning. I've been in similar scenarios and I was scared/nervous too.

I just think it's a bad thing for the world from a pragmatic perspective. It's rolling over and submitting to terrorists. Which is bad news for everyone.

Open a question to the floor, why do you think all civilization promote a policy that they do not negotiate with terrorists?

Because the moment you do negotiate, you communicate to them and all other terrorists that terrorism works and is a viable means to an end to achieve a goal.

This is an extension of that. Terrorists look at this, go "Look lads our shit works, they're terrified and giving up." and so do more of it.

Is it confirmed that she's cancelling all her tours or just like a suspension?

I don't know if I'd consider taking time off from her tours as giving in to terrorism. If she negatively changed her character and came out of this with "worse" views due to the attack then you might have a point.
---

A paying fan deserves a nice show and I doubt she can pull that off at this time. Better to offer refunds or come back at a later date.
---

Moist_Cake posted...

Isn't that effectively saying the terrorists have won. ?

I find the concept of "letting the terrorists win" completely stupid. People have the right to be scared, people have the right to take time off in difficult situations.

How did the terrorists win? Are they shoving their tweets in your face saying "HAHA I won"? Are they throwing their own concerts to attract a young audience?

No, saying "they win" is just some BS based on an honor code or something. Screw that. People shouldn't be obligated to go against their better judgement just to prove a point. It doesn't shake up society on a massive level like terrorists want because some concerts were cancelled.

/rant
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Open a question to the floor, why do you think all civilization promote a policy that they do not negotiate with terrorists?

Because the moment you do negotiate, you communicate to them and all other terrorists that terrorism works and is a viable means to an end to achieve a goal.

This is an extension of that. Terrorists look at this, go "Look lads our shit works, they're terrified and giving up." and so do more of it.

It's one thing to expect this sort of thing from a leader of a nation or a military general because it's their job to protect their people, but Grande is a pop musician not a grizzled solider. Most people who aren't mouth-breathing trolls aren't going to equate her cancelling her concerts with negotiating with terrorists. C'mon dude, you can't be this dense, something like this would get to any person--man or woman.
---

She has every right in the world to cancel. That shit can fuck you up for life.

And to the people saying she's a coward or whatever, what about my personal situation? I spent nine months in Afghanistan, got shot at, mortared and saw a couple IED's go off. When I got back to Canada, I said fuck that noise and quit the military.

Am I a pussy for getting out? Am I letting the terrorists win?
---

If the people that bought tickets get their refund then sure, more power to her
---

I don't see the point, afaik the muslim lightning never strikes twice at the same spot

unless I missed something and they claimed this was allah's revenge against women idolization or something

emblem boy posted...

I don't know if I'd consider taking time off from her tours as giving in to terrorism.

So you'd argue the terrorism is a coincidence and she would have canceled the shows anyway?

I doubt it.

M-Watcher posted...

I find the concept of "letting the terrorists win" completely stupid. People have the right to be scared, people have the right to take time off in difficult situations.

Nobody to my knowledge has said otherwise. She does indeed have the right do to anything she likes and be scared. It's not even surprising. It's a tall order to ask a young girl to overcome an ordeal like that and still put on a show for a crowd who would also be nervous.

Emotions are a wonderful but at the same time hindering thing. It's like going to the cinema for the first time after Aurora. Yeah there's uncomfortable feeling in the back of your head but you can't just never go the movies again out of fear.

How did the terrorists win?

Because they have successfully not only launched an attack but demonstrated that they can destroy our values, cancel our tours, our entertainment, actually hinder our way of life and society and mold us into being unable to live normal lives, follow our plans, as we are in perpeutal fear of them and what they might do to us.

Which is their goal and the opposite of our goal. So they are winning.

If I say "Give me all your money and never leave your home or I'll beat the shit out of you." and you do it, I win. And will do the same to others.

If you say "No." then I lose and have to stop.

PostCrisisJ2 posted...

It's one thing to expect this sort of thing from a leader of a nation or a military general because it's their job to protect their people, but Grande is a pop musician not a grizzled solider.

Nobody said she was. Why do you have to lie and be intellectually dishonest to attempt to make an argument? All that's being pointed out is the reasoning.

You accept and understand why civilization has a non-negotiation policy, yet at the same time claim you don't understand why submitting to terrorism is a pragmatically bad thing.

It's silly. The reasoning is identical, just coming from different sources.

Eat More Beef posted...

what about my personal situation? I spent nine months in Afghanistan, got shot at, mortared and saw a couple IED's go off. When I got back to Canada, I said fuck that noise and quit the military.

Am I a pussy for getting out? Am I letting the terrorists win?

I'm not following what this has to do with anything.

But no leaving the military isn't cowardice or letting anyone win. Who said it was?

I don't understand that post.
---

Man, it certainly was nice around here for a while. Almost as if someone had gotten up a rotting dog turd, but a great big German Shepard came around and shit out a replacement. I wonder what changed?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Nobody said she was. Why do you have to lie and be intellectually dishonest to attempt to make an argument? All that's being pointed out is the reasoning.

You accept and understand why civilization has a non-negotiation policy, yet at the same time claim you don't understand why submitting to terrorism is a pragmatically bad thing.

It's silly. The reasoning is identical, just coming from different sources.

I never said that submitting to terrorism wasn't bad. Just that maybe people who aren't used to having people die at a performance they were at are going to be, at the very least, a bit shaken up about it enough to the point where they may want to retreat from it all.

Yes, what you're saying is reasonable, but people aren't always reasonable, especially if they've been emotionally compromised by something like a terror attack (whose purpose is to inflict emotional turmoil on the populace). Expecting people to be reasonable 100% of the time isn't exactly reasonable. Also, it may not have been Grande's own choice to even cancel in the first place--I can't see how her agency or something would decide to do it in order to protect her own safety and the safety of her fans. Something most people would actually consider reasonable.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

So you'd argue the terrorism is a coincidence and she would have canceled the shows anyway?

I don't see how my statement is arguing for that.
I'm saying that I see letting terrorists win if the attack causes a change in your values. Taking time off to recuperate is not a change in values or policy that lets the terrorist win.
If she decided to never go on tour again you'd have a point. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening
---

emblem boy posted...

I don't see how my statement is arguing for that.
I'm saying that I see letting terrorists win if the attack causes a change in your values.

Not doing a tour because you're so afraid of terrorists is a change in your values. You now value your tour and your society less than you did a week before.

I don't think this is even debatable. How can you argue she has changed how she values her safety and the importance of her tour and at the same time argue she hasn't changed her values? That's an oxymoron.

What you're arguing is that you think that letting terrorists win is worth it due to emotions and mental health.

And that's your opinion. You don't need to try to justify it via dishonesty, that way madness lies.

PostCrisisJ2 posted...

I never said that submitting to terrorism wasn't bad. Just that maybe people who aren't used to having people die at a performance they were at are going to be, at the very least, a bit shaken up about it enough to the point where they may want to retreat from it all.

Absolutely and I don't think anyone can blame her for not being up to dealing with those emotions. It's a tall order.

PostCrisisJ2 posted...

Yes, what you're saying is reasonable, but people aren't always reasonable, especially if they've been emotionally compromised by something like a terror attack (whose purpose is to inflict emotional turmoil on the populace). Expecting people to be reasonable 100% of the time isn't exactly reasonable.

Well exactly. Which is why in my post I specifically mentioned the difference between emotion and pragmastism. Especially when dealing with a young girl.

People being surprised or angry that she is being overwhelmed by emotions are not very intelligent. It's obviously going to happen.

TC's "Do you think it's right?" is the wrong question in my eyes.

Also, it may not have been Grande's own choice to even cancel in the first place--I can't see how her agency or something would decide to do it in order to protect her own safety and the safety of her fans. Something most people would actually consider reasonable.

I don't think this is the case. Either way it's a moot point.
---

I think her team, her performers, and herself did what they can to ensure the safety and security of themselves and most importantly, their concert go-ers. Canceling the rest of her concert tour is understandable.

Her concerts are to bring everyone together and sing in celebration of her songs. There's only sorrow, regret, and sadness in everyone's heart now in light of what happened. Fans may even fear for their lives for going to a concert. If youre a parent, would you let your own go an evening after the bombing at her concert? So likely, its in the best interests of everyone to allow time for the mourning and healing of those who were lost.


If she had gone through, she probably needed the assurance of added security and likely, government involvement for the safety of more than just the venue capacity.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Not doing a tour because you're so afraid of terrorists is a change in your values. You now value your tour and your society less than you did a week before.

I don't think this is even debatable. How can you argue she has changed how she values her safety and the importance of her tour and at the same time argue she hasn't changed her values? That's an oxymoron.

What you're arguing is that you think that letting terrorists win is worth it due to emotions and mental health.

And that's your opinion. You don't need to try to justify it via dishonesty, that way madness lies

I didn't say she wasn't doing the tour because of a fear of terrorist attacks though. I never even mentioned her safety or how she views the safety of the tour.

I'm saying that the attack is as big an issue as any drastic emotional situation that might happen in her life. If there was a big emotional event that happened in her life, I'd say it's fine taking time off. That's what I'm comparing this attack to. It's an emotional moment and she's taking time off to cope.

If she's taking the time off because of a fear of it happening again, then I'd say you have a point. But I don't have that type of information
---

If the rumors are true that she always had a fear of an attack happening at one of her concerts, this is likely to fuck her up for life. For her safety and state of mind, this is the right thing to do and there's no debating that.
---

My god, Unfair, you are the biggest fucking shitposter on this entire board. There's a difference between taking a break to recuperate and never doing tours again. Only the latter is "letting the terrorists win". The former is completely reasonable and expected after an unexpected attack. Even in a war with soldiers during a sudden attack or ambush stopping what they're doing at the time and making a tactical retreat to readjust is the smartest thing to do and that doesn't mean they lost at all. Continuing to blindly fight when you're surrounded in a disadvantage and extreme danger is actually what is emotional and pragmatically moronic
---

GiftedACIII posted...

My god, Unfair, you are the biggest fucking shitposter on this entire board.

Aka "You disagree with me but I can't argue with you on merit so I will just insult and degrade you to protect my worldview."

Sad but not unsurprising.

There's a difference between taking a break to recuperate and never doing tours again.

Nobody said otherwise

Only the latter is "letting the terrorists win". The former is completely reasonable and expected after an unexpected attack.

That's your opinion. I'd argue giving up on values, society and way of life is letting terrorists win. Going "Yeah I gave up on values and society but only a little bit!" doesn't really fit here.

Look up the life of Philippe Pétain as I am near certain you've never heard of him and you'll see the reality.

Even in a war with soldiers during a sudden attack or ambush stopping what they're doing at the time and making a tactical retreat to readjust is the smartest thing to do and that doesn't mean they lost at all. Continuing to blindly fight when you're surrounded in a disadvantage and extreme danger is actually what is emotional and pragmatically moronic

False equivalence.

HBOSS posted...

Her concerts are to bring everyone together and sing in celebration of her songs. There's only sorrow, regret, and sadness in everyone's heart now in light of what happened. Fans may even fear for their lives for going to a concert. If youre a parent, would you let your own go an evening after the bombing at her concert? So likely, its in the best interests of everyone to allow time for the mourning and healing of those who were lost.

Gonna turn to Japan's children's games for this one where two characters argue about the point of entertainment following death and destruction.

Tidus: "Praying for victory's all good...but is this right?"

Wakka: "Something wrong with enjoying blitzball?"

Tidus: "Is this really the time?"

Wakka: "This is the only time! The players fight with all their strength; the fans cheer for their favorite team. They forget pain, suffering... Only the game matters! That's why blitz has been around for so long. Least that's what I think."

Tidus: "Whatever you say."

Thanks to @Shotgunnova for his gamescript FAQ as I couldn't find a video on Youtube

emblem boy posted...

I'm saying that the attack is as big an issue as any drastic emotional situation that might happen in her life. If there was a big emotional event that happened in her life, I'd say it's fine taking time off. That's what I'm comparing this attack to. It's an emotional moment and she's taking time off to cope.

I don't get your point.

It appears to be "If this wasn't a terrorist attack and she just had emotional problems, you'd view it differently than you'd view terrorist attacks!"

Erm.... yeah? So would the entire population of the world.

Not unconvinced that a dog wouldn't treat the scenarios differently.

I don't get you on this one.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't get your point.

It appears to be "If this wasn't a terrorist attack and she just had emotional problems, you'd view it differently than you'd view terrorist attacks!"

Erm.... yeah? So would the entire population of the world.

Not unconvinced that a dog wouldn't treat the scenarios differently.

I don't get you on this one.

Assuming the reason for her cancelation isn't due to fear of another attack happening, then I'd view this the same as if she cancelled due to a difficult emotional situation.
---

emblem boy posted...

Assuming the reason for her cancelation isn't due to fear of another attack happening, then I'd view this the same as if she cancelled due to a difficult emotional situation.

But that's just silly.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

emblem boy posted...

Assuming the reason for her cancelation isn't due to fear of another attack happening, then I'd view this the same as if she cancelled due to a difficult emotional situation.

But that's just silly.

Why?
---

emblem boy posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

emblem boy posted...

Assuming the reason for her cancelation isn't due to fear of another attack happening, then I'd view this the same as if she cancelled due to a difficult emotional situation.

But that's just silly.

Why?

Because the cancelation is still being casued by the terrorist attack,

Going "you'd wouldn't feel like Zack Snyder stepping down from the Justice League because his daughter killed herself was submitting to terrorism! So how come stepping down because you're so scared of terrorism following terrorist attacks is submiting to terrorism!" is a very silly point indeed.

It feels like a Monthy Python Sketch.

One of the bad taste python sketches that dates poorly

Like the Eric Idle in blackface running an African resturant one.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

emblem boy posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

emblem boy posted...

Assuming the reason for her cancelation isn't due to fear of another attack happening, then I'd view this the same as if she cancelled due to a difficult emotional situation.

But that's just silly.

Why?

Because the cancelation is still being casued by the terrorist attack,

Going "you'd wouldn't feel like Zack Snyder stepping down from the Justice League because his daughter killed herself was submitting to terrorism! So how come stepping down because you're so scared of terrorism following terrorist attacks is submiting to terrorism!" is a very silly point indeed.

It feels like a Monthy Python Sketch.

One of the bad taste python sketches that dates poorly

Like the Eric Idle in blackface running an African resturant one.

Do you think she's canceling her tour because she fears another attack?
---

I have no idea. I don't know her personally.

Based solely off her Twitter account, I'd say yes.

I don't get the relevance though.
---

>pop star has terrorist attack happen at concert
>multiple children die
>pop star decides it's safer to cancel her tour and likely reschedule once tensions die down
>CE tries to make that pop star feel like shit for doing it

Fucking never change.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

>pop star has terrorist attack happen at concert
>multiple children die
>pop star decides it's safer to cancel her tour and likely reschedule once tensions die down
>CE tries to make that pop star feel like shit for doing it

Fucking never change.

I expected this sadly. CE hated her long before this. People still bring up the fucking doughnut incident. Like Christ shut the fuck up.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

>pop star has terrorist attack happen at concert
>multiple children die
>pop star decides it's safer to cancel her tour and likely reschedule once tensions die down
>CE tries to make that pop star feel like shit for doing it

Fucking never change.

not CE, just a resident shitposter

UnfairRepresent posted...

And I fully understand her reasoning. I've been in similar scenarios and I was scared/nervous too.

please, do tell
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I have no idea. I don't know her personally.

Based solely off her Twitter account, I'd say yes.

I don't get the relevance though.

Because of this



UnfairRepresent posted...

Going "you'd wouldn't feel like Zack Snyder stepping down from the Justice League because his daughter killed herself was submitting to terrorism! So how come stepping down because you're so scared of terrorism following terrorist attacks is submiting to terrorism!" is a very silly point indeed.

I've said multiple times that I don't think it's due to fear and that if it isn't due to fear I don't think it's letting terrorism win. If it's due to fear, then like I've said already, you have a point
---

emblem boy posted...

I've said multiple times that I don't think it's due to fear and that if it isn't due to fear I don't think it's letting terrorism win. If it's due to fear, then like I've said already, you have a point

"I don't want to do it because they might attack again"

and

"I don't want to do it because I am so scared of them"

Are both not doing it because of fear. It's a distinction without a difference.

Honestly talking to you is like talking to Baron Munchausen

Sally: " he is Baron Munchausen! The real one! - You must believe me! No, honestly! He is!

Onlooker: "Shut up!"

Sally: "But he is! And he can save us! He jumped onto a cannonball. He really did! And he flew miles up into the sky! Above the elephants and soldiers--

Onlooker: "God! Stop lying!"

Sally: "I'm not lying! Am I?"

Baron Munchausen: "As a matter of fact, you are."

Sally: "But he did. And those soldiers saw him too! They'll tell you! Oh, they're dead. But he did!

Baron Munchausen: "No, I didn't.

Sally: Now you're lying!

Baron Munchausen: "I never lie!"

Sally: "What's got into you?"

Baron Munchausen: "I didn't fly miles. It was more like a mile and a half. And I didn't precisely fly. I merely held on to a mortar shell in the first instance... and then a cannonball on the way back."
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Aka "You disagree with me but I can't argue with you on merit so I will just insult and degrade you to protect my worldview."

Sad but not unsurprising.

No it's a fact that you're just a fucking dense shitposter who's making up nonsense and bullshit like Charles Mansen when he's in prison either because you're just trolling for kicks or you're actually this unhinged.
UnfairRepresent posted...

That's your opinion. I'd argue giving up on values, society and way of life is letting terrorists win. Going "Yeah I gave up on values and society but only a little bit!" doesn't really fit here.

Look up the life of Philippe Pétain as I am near certain you've never heard of him and you'll see the reality.

There's nothing about giving up value, society, and way of life with taking a break after a tragedy at all. That's you just rambling nonsense to shitpost. After anything big happens, like a random fire accident it's standard to take a break to recuperate. This is normal for any event, like sporting events and plays, not exclusive to concerts and women, like your misogynistic ass is trying to imply. If a a random fire broke out at her concert they'd also take a break to recuperate, this is nothing about values.

Even in a war with soldiers during a sudden attack or ambush stopping what they're doing at the time and making a tactical retreat to readjust is the smartest thing to do and that doesn't mean they lost at all. Continuing to blindly fight when you're surrounded in a disadvantage and extreme danger is actually what is emotional and pragmatically moronic

False equivalence.

Well yes, this is false equivalence (though this is coming from the doofus who's comparing real life to a fantasy game) since values has nothing to do with taking a break after a tragedy. That's just standard procedure and normal-which is something you know nothing about. However, even if this is actually about values, say, if Ariana Grande was a soldier in a war, then your entire mindset is still wrong since staying to blindly fight in an ambush is completely moronic because real life isn't some action movie where you're invincible and can beat anything, tactically retreating is what's smart.
So basically everything about you is wrong as usual.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

No it's a fact that you're just a fucking dense shitposter who's making up nonsense and bullshit like Charles Mansen when he's in prison either because you're just trolling for kicks or you're actually this unhinged.

I like that your argument against the fact you just insult and discredit when you have no actual point is to just shout "Ur like Charls manson! you're unhinged!"

Says it all there really. It's especially embarrasing as there have been posters in this topic actually insulting Ariana Grande and you're ignoring them because you don't fear them like you fear me,

GiftedACIII posted...

There's nothing about giving up value, society, and way of life with taking a break after a tragedy at all. That's you just rambling nonsense to shitpost. After anything big happens, like a random fire accident it's standard to take a break to recuperate. This is normal for any event, like sporting events and plays, not exclusive to concerts and women, like your misogynistic ass is trying to imply. If a a random fire broke out at her concert they'd also take a break to recuperate, this is nothing about values.

Yeah I didn't think you'd have the open-mindedness to look up Philippe Pétain either.

Again, random acts of God and terrorist attacks are a False equivalence. Unless you're one of those weridos who claims God sends down tornados because of gay people.

The point is incomparable.

GiftedACIII posted...

since values has nothing to do with taking a break after a tragedy.

Kinda do actually when the "tragedy" is someone trying to force you to give up on your values.

Don't you realize that America destroying it's own economy with an insatiable military-industrial complex, middle-east intervention, Muslim "Travel" Ban, election of Donald Trump, The UK leaving the EU and the general level of fear and stupidity that has cultivated by terrorists are victories for them?

Things that have no real power to achieve themselves because they are insignificant but by manipulating people like you on mass, they can actually harm and alter society? The entire point of terrorism?

Giving up on values and our life is submitting. It's one more cog in that machine.

GiftedACIII posted...

However, even if this is actually about values, say, if Ariana Grande was a soldier in a war, then your entire mindset is still wrong since staying to blindly fight in an ambush is completely moronic because real life isn't some action movie where you're invincible and can beat anything, tactically retreating is what's smart.
So basically everything about you is wrong as usual.

False equivalence.

A solider commiting suicide had no relation to someone not submitting to terrorism. It's an awful point.

Like saying "You wouldn't go punch a bear in the dick in front of 2 other bears so therefore you should stick your hand in a toaster." it's just nonsense. A pure non-sequitor
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I like that your argument against the fact you just insult and discredit when you have no actual point is to just shout "Ur like Charls manson! you're unhinged!"

Says it all there really. It's especially embarrasing as there have been posters in this topic actually insulting Ariana Grande and you're ignoring them because you don't fear them like you fear me

Says the complete fool who can only straw man people as fictional characters since that's the only thing your tiny mind knows.

Yeah I didn't think you'd have the open-mindedness to look up Philippe Pétain either.

Again, random acts of God and terrorist attacks are a False equivalence. Unless you're one of those weridos who claims God sends down tornados because of gay people.

The point is incomparable.

What the fuck are you even talking about? It's standard procedure to take a break after something big happens. A random accident, a band member having a heart attack onstage, some random lunatic going up and shooting their ex, a bombing, those are all big things that will make a group cancel their plans to readjust. There is no false equivalencies. You randomly bring up God for no reason. This is why I say you're a rambling is akin to Charles Manson's rambling You are making paragraphs of nonsense about bullshit you made up in your head.

Kinda do actually when the "tragedy" is someone trying to force you to give up on your values.

Don't you realize that America destroying it's own economy with an insatiable military-industrial complex, middle-east intervention, Muslim "Travel" Ban, election of Donald Trump, The UK leaving the EU and the general level of fear and stupidity that has cultivated by terrorists are victories for them?


Giving up on values and our life is submitting. It's one more cog in that machine.

More ramblings about bullshit you made up in your head and has nothing to do with taking a break after a tragedy. Why do you always act so psychotic? I'll have one last attempt to get you to see reason. If a band member was shot onstage and the group cancels plans until everything is sorted out that's nothing about giving in to the shooter, especially if the shooter later died himself. It being a terrorism event does not change that cancellation is normal after something big happens and they can come back as usual once everything is readjusted. Your insistence that terrorism makes everything about values is insane troll logic. Your logic is basically "a guy was shot by a terrorist and if ambulances come over to save him that's giving in to the terrorist and losing your values" regardless if it's actually just standard procedure for non terrorism related situations or not.

.

A solider commiting suicide had no relation to someone not submitting to terrorism. It's an awful point.

Like saying "You wouldn't go punch a bear in the dick in front of 2 other bears so therefore you should stick your hand in a toaster." it's just nonsense. A pure non-sequitor

You either missed the point bigtime or you're just psychotically rambling again. What I was saying was that if a platoon was ambushed by terrorists, retreating is the smart move and isn't "giving in to terrorism". According to you, everything that's not facing terrorists straight on is giving in to terrorism and that's both emotional and moronic as all your stupid ideas tend to be.
And even so, taking a break as standard procedure nothing to do with submitting to terrorism or not.
---

GiftedACIII posted...

What the fuck are you even talking about? It's standard procedure to take a break after something big happens. A random accident, a band member having a heart attack onstage, some random lunatic going up and shooting their ex, those are all big things that will make a group cancel their plans to readjust.

These aren't terrorism.

GiftedACIII posted...

If a band member was shot onstage and the group cancels plans until everything is sorted

False equivalence.

GiftedACIII posted...

Your logic is basically "a guy was shot by a terrorist and if ambulances come over to save him that's giving in to the terrorist and losing your values" .

Strawman

GiftedACIII posted...

What I was saying was that if a platoon was ambushed by terrorists, retreating is the smart move

False equivalence.

GiftedACIII posted...

According to you, everything that's not facing terrorists straight on is giving in to terrorism

Strawman.

Can you make a point that isn't just saying something irrelevant and then going "therefore it's good to submit to terrorism" or just going "Ur logic is [something horrible] your stuf and pyschotic."

It's pointless otherwise
---

If people believe she is bad because she doesn't feel able to perform after children died at her concert, they can go fuck themselves.
---

Funkydog posted...

If people believe she is bad because she doesn't feel able to perform after children died at her concert, they can go fuck themselves.

But that's letting the terrorists win!!!!!!!!!!
---

GiftedACIII posted...

If a band member was shot onstage and the group cancels plans until everything is sorted

False equivalence.

GiftedACIII posted...

Your logic is basically "a guy was shot by a terrorist and if ambulances come over to save him that's giving in to the terrorist and losing your values" .

Strawman

GiftedACIII posted...

What I was saying was that if a platoon was ambushed by terrorists, retreating is the smart move

False equivalence.

Can you make a point that isn't just saying something irrelevant and then going "therefore it's good to submit to terrorism" or just going "Ur logic is [something horrible] your stuf and pyschotic."

It's pointless otherwise

lol so you've conceded your defeat by moronically calling everything fallacies which is in itself a fallacy. The argument from fallacy, and that means you lost.

UnfairRepresent posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

What the fuck are you even talking about? It's standard procedure to take a break after something big happens. A random accident, a band member having a heart attack onstage, some random lunatic going up and shooting their ex, those are all big things that will make a group cancel their plans to readjust.

These aren't terrorism.

So this is your only actual argument which is stupid beyond belief, something a 3 year old would make.
You actually ARE just saying terrorism makes everything about values.
So this is your logic

Police:there's been a bombing! We need emergency services immediately to evacuate and care for the civilians!
UR: Ackchyually, since this is a terorist event, that would be submitting to the teroists and shows the government is afraid of them.

INB4 FALSE EQUIVALENCY, STRAWMAN
Can you make a single point that isn't "terrorism suddenly makes all completely related events false equivalencies", "terrorism turns everything into values even though it's just standard procedure for all emergencies/tragedies", and "THATS LETTING TBE TERKRISTS WIN"
---

I feel bad for Ariana. She just performed a show. She wasn't even thinking about this. Now news outlets keep saying "tragedy and ARIANA GRANDE concert!" And using her picture in their thumbnails. Leave her out of it. It was a tragedy at a concert. Who was performing is irrelevant. You don't need to paste her face all over your story. She feels guilty for what happened and it isn't her fault at all. News outlets doing shit like that aren't helping. Talk about what happened. Stop trying to get views by using her name and picture. It's not at all relevant.

GiftedACIII posted...

moronically calling everything fallacies

Strawman

GiftedACIII posted...

So this is your only actual argument which is stupid beyond belief, something a 3 year old would make.
You actually ARE just saying terrorism makes everything about values.

I'm saying that if you tell terrorists that will give up our values, society and way of life if they commit acts of terrorism then that encourages acts of terrorism and is pragmatically a bad move.

Literally every civilized nation on Earth agrees with me. And you are unable to argue against it.

GiftedACIII posted...

Can you make a single point that isn't "terrorism suddenly makes all completely related events false equivalencies" and "terrorism turns everything into values even though it's just standard procedure for all emergencies/tragedies"?

Strawmen. No one has argued either of those statements.
---

there's a difference between 'terrorists winning' by forcing major political bodies to fear them, and 'terrorist winning' by causing a celebrity to be distraught
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

I feel bad for Ariana. She just performed a show. She wasn't even thinking about this. Now news outlets keep saying "tragedy and ARIANA GRANDE concert!" And using her picture in their thumbnails. Leave her out of it. It was a tragedy at a concert. Who was performing is irrelevant. You don't need to paste her face all over your story. She feels guilty for what happened and it isn't her fault at all. News outlets doing shit like that aren't helping. Talk about what happened. Stop trying to get views by using her name and picture. It's not at all relevant.

It's a sad facet of the media.

They don't care about the well being of celbrities (or people for that matter) and are happy to slap her face on things and stalk her with cameras for a few more views, ratings, ad reveune you name it.

Reality is quite a few news outlets love when these kind of attacks happen because it gives them more attention.

You can see that from places like this:

https://twitter.com/channeltennews/status/867279497577472000

The respectful thing to do would be to leave her name and face out of it and let get on with her life.
---

_Raich_ posted...

there's a difference between 'terrorists winning' by forcing major political bodies to fear them, and 'terrorist winning' by causing a celebrity to be distraught

It's about causing others to be afraid to live their life. She canceled the concerts. I'm sure people who were going to attend those would be afraid to go after this if she didn't cancel them. They see this as a win. It's like after 9/11 when the NFL suspended their season then said "fuck that. We aren't afraid of you...we're going to keep living our lives"...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Strawman

Argument from fallacy
UnfairRepresent posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

So this is your only actual argument which is stupid beyond belief, something a 3 year old would make.
You actually ARE just saying terrorism makes everything about values.

I'm saying that if you tell terrorists that will give up our values, society and way of life if they commit acts of terrorism then that encourages acts of terrorism and is pragmatically a bad move.

Literally every civilized nation on Earth agrees with me. And you are unable to argue against it.

Yes, that's true. And that is completely irrelevant and actually a false equivalency to taking a break after a big incident which is normal and standard procedure .
Literally any sane individual who doesn't have less brain cells than they have limbs knows this. And you are unable to argue against it.
GiftedACIII posted...

Can you make a single point that isn't "terrorism suddenly makes all completely related events false equivalencies" and "terrorism turns everything into values even though it's just standard procedure for all emergencies/tragedies"?

Strawmen. No one has argued either of those statements.

Argument from fallacy. That's exactly what you're arguing. Otherwise taking a break due to a terrorist event and taking a break due to a random shooter aren't false equivalencies.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

_Raich_ posted...

there's a difference between 'terrorists winning' by forcing major political bodies to fear them, and 'terrorist winning' by causing a celebrity to be distraught

It's about causing others to be afraid to live their life. She canceled the concerts. I'm sure people who were going to attend those would be afraid to go after this if she didn't cancel them. They see this as a win. It's like after 9/11 when the NFL suspended their season then said "fuck that. We aren't afraid of you...we're going to keep living our lives"...

Exactly.

I still think the smartest thing to do following 9/11 would have been to rebuild the towers.

Now other terrorists will see this is a viable option.

Always remember terrorists resort to this shit because it's all they have. If terrorism doesn't work then they have lost. If terrorism works, then we have lost.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

_Raich_ posted...

there's a difference between 'terrorists winning' by forcing major political bodies to fear them, and 'terrorist winning' by causing a celebrity to be distraught

It's about causing others to be afraid to live their life. She canceled the concerts. I'm sure people who were going to attend those would be afraid to go after this if she didn't cancel them. They see this as a win. It's like after 9/11 when the NFL suspended their season then said "fuck that. We aren't afraid of you...we're going to keep living our lives"...

And who says she won't make a return later in the future? By your and clownfair's logic, since the NFL did suspend it and most audience members were very afraid during that time then they still submitted and gave up their values if only a little bit and al quaeda still won
---

GiftedACIII posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

_Raich_ posted...

there's a difference between 'terrorists winning' by forcing major political bodies to fear them, and 'terrorist winning' by causing a celebrity to be distraught

It's about causing others to be afraid to live their life. She canceled the concerts. I'm sure people who were going to attend those would be afraid to go after this if she didn't cancel them. They see this as a win. It's like after 9/11 when the NFL suspended their season then said "fuck that. We aren't afraid of you...we're going to keep living our lives"...

And who says she won't make a return later in the future? By your and clownfair's logic, since the NFL did suspend it and there were surely audience members who were very afraid at that time then they still submitted and gave up their values if only a little bit and al quaeda still won

no i completely agree with you...i was just responding to that one guy. I understand why she canceled her shows and i fully support her....She will come back and the UK will go back to living their lives....Just responding to that one post....to the terrorists, there is no difference.

she's not obligated to do shit that she doesn't want to, as long as refunds are paid.

fuck off and let her live her life how she wants to.

Fam_Fam posted...

she's not obligated to do shit that she doesn't want to, as long as refunds are paid.

fuck off and let her live her life how she wants to.

Probably an insurance job.

Record company get paid for lost earnings. Fans get tickets back and then she can re-do the tour at some other point and pretty much double her money.