Then they don't promote violence.
Sure they do, they just don't have to lead to violence for it to still be promoted.
Oni: "Lets go beat some people up who disagree with us." - (That would be me promoting violence as a resolution to people disagreeing with me.)
Friends: "No thanks. And you should really stop promoting violence as a solution to someone disagreeing with you because one day, someone may listen to you and follow you, and it can get ugly."
To "present the idea," or "advertise the idea," that is what the definitions you gave called it.
If they don't actually lead to any violence, there's no such thing as a "movie or TV show that promotes violence."
TV shows and movies where conflicts are settled violently promote violence as a solution to problems.
Well, no, I couldn't. It's against the law to make false claims of medical efficacy in advertising.
Are you telling me that every product advertised to do something, or promoted to do something, works?
Are you seriously saying there is truth to advertisement?
Are you saying that all pills that promote penis enlargement have to work if not they can't be advertised?
And what do you mean, "who cares about truthfully"? I care, that's why I specified it in my example. I believe it actually matters what words mean.
Truthfully had nothing to do with the meaning of a word, only to the veracity of the product promoted. Try to follow the discussion.
Oni writes:
Islam, promotes violence as a resolution to problems, but it doesn't actually increase violence, so there is no reason to fear muslims.
CS writes:
Well, but it does increase violence, that's how we know that Islam can be used to promote violence.
Yes but as I wrote: "Sometimes it DOESN'T cause an increase in violence even though it continues to promote violence."
For example, Christianity today vs 500 years ago. Same scripture that promotes violence as a resolution to a varity of things, but it doesn't cause an increase in violence anymore. Compaired to 500 years ago, the Christians of the world, for the most part, are significantly less violent. But the Bible continues to promote it.
Oni writes:
That is the whole point to something promoting violence but not actually contributing to violence!
CS writes:
But that's unintelligible nonsense. That's precisely what it means to "promote."
I should have ended that with "in every case." Does that make more sense?
Something can promote violence but not actually contribute to vioelnce in every case.
For example, lets hypothetically assume that Palin and the right-wing rhetoric had nothing to do with Loughner shooting the congress woman. That it was actually a voice in his head like Son of Sam with the dog. You wouldn't then say that that means Palin and the right-wing rhetoric doesn't lead to violence, right? You obviously evidenced cases where it did.
So in that example, you would have something that promoted vioelnce, but doesn't lead to violence in every case. In some cases, it has nothing to do with violence.
What was your proof that they didn't?
They could have, I'm not saying they couldn't. It could have been both, Hitler and self lead. In fact, it probably was both.
My point is that we couldn't prove only one or only the other, it makes sense that both could have, since they were both present forces at the time.
You misspoke. Cop to it, apologize for the lack of clarity, and we can move on. But we'll continue to go over it until you stop lying about what actually happened here.
Eat shit. Hows that?
Well, for the most part. The judiciary is still pretty heavily Republican, and Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives.
So our government is 2/3 Republican and you feel the Democrats run it? How does that math work out?
You wouldn't actually have to find someone who bought soap because of your ad - such a person might not even exist. The people who did go out and buy soap may not have even seen a single one of your ads - nevertheless, your ads were responsible for an increase in soap purchases.
That's insane!
Lets say you wanted to run the ads again. Would you spend a million dollars in advertising again on the ads if you didn't really know if your ads increased the sales in soap?
You'd want to make sure your advertisment directly caused the increase in soap sale before you invest another million dollars in running those ads again. Because if it was another factor, one that you were to lazy to figure out, and we spent a million dollars on advertising again, but this time sales never increased cause that unknown facotr failed this time, you would be out of a job.
You would be asked why you reinvested the money if there was no direct evidence between the ads and the increase in sales.
The evidence is that a congresswoman was targeted for assassination after an election where Republicans targeted her with assassination rhetoric in print ads, TV and radio media, and at campaign appearances where supporters were invited to fire at a picture of her with an automatic weapon.
And there is no evidence that Loughner followed any of that. What there IS evidence for is a disturbed kid, with an anti-establishement, anti-government attitude, who enjoyed reading far left-wing propaganda.
How do I know they've become predictable? Rep. Giffords herself predicted it.
The prediction as evidence was so weak you dropped it earlier, now you bring it back?
She said "That kind of thing could have consequences," 9 months ago, in a 5 sec blurb on a show. That is hardly a prediction of anything.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
) using "dangerous rhetorc", I was trying to show that this is not an exclusively "right side" thing to do.
™ Version 4.2