Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "LegalEagle"
channel.
-
148
-
141
-
77
-
28
-
17
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@paulbutkovich6103 1) Broken bones, head trauma, lacerations, & respiratory illness. This is remarkably easy to check and you should have done so yourself before asking.
3) I wouldn't call it usual.
4) "There isn't enough pressure to make them do those things"
Until there is. Some colleges have already negotiated and met some of the students' demands. And this sort of civil disobedience has a decent track record of success.
"Transparently would make their operations more difficult"
That's the point.
"How much actual investment is there?"
Hundreds of millions.
"Colleges have no power to affect other governments"
This is a very silly point. It is not necessary to influence distant governments.
First and foremost academia can exert significant influence on the US government. The current operation could not continue without US endorsement, cooperation, and financing. If the US pulls support, the conflict is over.
Aside from that, it is well known that academia has a major influence of distant governments. Both in validating their legitimacy, financial support, innovation & cooperative research, and in setting the public narrative. A call for cessation from major academic institutions in the US exerts significant pressure.
Finally, we should note that academic endorsement of immediate cessation of hostilities has a significant effect on public opinion influencing voting patterns and investment decisions globally.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@Leyrann lol Well, that's certainly one (thickheaded) approach to interpreting my words.
"You assume rich men are naturally abusive"
This might be a simple reading comprehending deficiency on your part.
We do not have to assume abuse on anyone's part because there seems to be ample evidence of mutual abuse. Depp has already admitted to this.
I made no assumptions.
"Sometimes a weaker person may abuse a stronger person"
Yes, but we're not comparing a physical weaker person to a stronger person. We're comparing a weaker, less wealthy, less experienced, less famous, less powerful, less charismatic, younger, less career established person.
What you're doing here is multiplying improbabilities.
A child on a playground may abuse a stronger child. But that becomes infinitely less likely when the purported victim is not just stronger. But also faster, older, more experienced, more popular, more well liked, richer, and has already admitted to abusing the younger, weaker, poorer, less popular, less experienced and less well liked child.
If a graduating senior tells me he had to fight a kindergartener who he has already admitted to repeatedly abusing that senior is getting in trouble every single time.
I'm sorry this playground analogy is quite stupid and inappropriate, but please remember that you brought it up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mike Williams lol congratulations. You've absolutely proven that Google is wasted on thickheaded people such as yourself. Don't worry, I'm here to help.
@puplerains' comment was neither a counter-accusation, nor a "different issue". Rather it was clarifying context for the very same issue.
The point of the comment is that underreporting of one specific form of DV is also present in broader category of DV. Thus causality here may be linked.
Perhaps if we take a topic you're not so emotional about, you can see this more clearly:
If you say,
"over the past 3 years, all the mockingbirds in this forest have disappeared",
a whataboutism would be for me to say,
"So what? High school drop out rates are increasing, maybe you should focus on that instead"
You see? I am changing the subject in order to deflect.
If, however I say,
"actually, all the wildlife has disappeared, so this might not be specifically about the birds alone"
This is not a whataboutism. I have not changed the topic as a deflection mechanism, rather I have introduced contextual facts which give us a greater nuance about the original topic of conversation. Namely, that a phenomenon we may falsely identify as unique to a specific population may actually be related to broader dynamics within the overarching population.
@purplerain does this when he relates a specific claim about female-on-male DV to broader patterns we already know exist among all DV.
Don't worry, read it slower and you'll get it. You're welcome 😉
1
-
1
-
1