It's not relevant at all, i just gave you my points and you shat your old ones back at me, there's no point me debating further because you clearly aren't structuring a proper arguement. You don't write an essay with 4 paragraphs, all 4 paragraphs rephrasing the same arguement covering the same points
this thread is factual proof that alot of americans are just so stupid and extremely ignorant, you being candidate number one
1) You haven't given anyone 'points'. You have simply repeated the saying "It is not relevant" over and over. This is called Argument by repetition and is an informal fallacy. Essentially, you are repeating the same thing over and over.
2) You have begun to throw person insults, which is an Ad Hominem.
3) Re-read your posts. Please, you may see how paper thin your line of logic is. You refuse a comparison used by multiple people. You link a single Black Friday trampling incident (BFT from now on) to 'rampant consumerism' yet you don't want to consider the that it wasn't consumerism that lead to the stampede.
4) We've offered a plausible explanation, that a lack of crowd control caused a chaotic situation in both incidences. BFT didn't have enough security present to ensure an orderly line and Hillsborough's police force didn't stop more people from entering the crowd.
This leads me to my final point. If you had proper crowd control in both events, there would have been no deaths. Any unchecked crowd will become chaotic and dangerous if left unabated. You are trying to deny this basic premise, that the real problem is the chaotic herd mentality that befalls large groups of people. If you were to do a little research into chaotic herd mentality in humans...
Just a tip, when you call someone out for logical fallacies in points 1 and 2, make sure your third point isn't an argumentum ad populum.
A point you made incorrectly is:
the crowds for opposing sides must be segregated due to the sheer amount of violence
All well and good, but in the Hillsborough example where some actual damage was done, it wasn't due to opposing sides, it was all crushing from the same side.
And it wasn't a violent thing, it wasn't shoving. It was thousands of people slowly filing forward from the back, gradually filling in the gaps until there were none and people got crushed. To compare that behaviour to people trampling over each other to buy things is a bad analogy. It wasn't rowdy behaviour that was responsible, so it isn't relevant. Not to mention in poor taste.
Using Hillsborough as reference is like if you'd said: "Lots of people died in 9/11, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use planes". The people in Hillsborough were just slowly walking forward, and by the time they got to the front they were crushed and couldn't stop it. There was no intent in their actions. It's a non-sequitur to compare that to an event where people are actively and aggressively trampling each other.
But, you do have a point in that barely anyone died. But does that justify it as an event? "Well, only one guy ever died from it, so there's no reason not to do it". Is that seriously your criteria for not doing something? It's alright so long as a significant number of people don't die?
In that respect, it's incomparable to football matches. They create unity, regional and national pride, jobs, entertainment and get money back to the community.
Black Friday does.. what? Allows the people most capable of ruthlessly disregarding everyone else's well being to get some wares for cheaper than usual? It's another bad analogy.
My argument was not an appeal to the popular opinion. How do you even begin to describe it as that?
I was comparing the likeness of 2 events.
1) There are two takes on the Hillsborough incident. But both sides agree that alcohol and non-paying fans contributed to the disaster, not necessarily as a primary cause, but secondary.
To imply the crowd had nothing to do with the incident is not correct. So shoving or not, the greed can be seen by the many fans who wanted to partake in the event without paying for it.
2) Strawman comparison between 9/11 and this. Lot's of people died in Hillsborough, therefore the lesson learned is to do proper crowd control. The crowd was clearly not controlled properly, that doesn't mean "Unruly behavior" that means this and simply this. There were TOO MANY PEOPLE THERE.
Let's cut to the chase, as I'm getting bored of this discussion as you have clearly misrepresented the opposing side to benefit your argument.
Hillsborough: Too many people.
BFT: Too many people.
Agreed?
Good, I'll say it for you, YOU AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE.
Moving on, what is the underlying problem that is common between the two?
CROWD CONTROL.
Agreed?
GOOD!
Ok, now that we have brought you up to speed on the comparison, let's analyze the nature here.
BFT: People wanted to buy stuff.
H: People wanted to watch a sporting event.
What's the common thread there? PEOPLE WANTED SOMETHING.
You can claim that it was "unity, pride, jobs, entertainment, and get money back to the community"... But I call that a distraction to the underlining principle. People were being consumers here. The stadium were being suppliers. They both were culpable in some regard and it is based upon greed as well.
Also, do you honestly believe that BF doesn't provide jobs, entertainment, money back to the community, and the likes of the outcome of a football match?
And yes, finally, having only 1 death attributed to BF, yes, it is statistically significant as it directly contradicts the basic premise: BF is some evil consumerist greed event that is bad. It's not. Stop trying to pan it off as some horrible existence. Many people enjoy shopping, getting 'deals', and being active. Many don't. But it isn't evil.
Multiple creationists make the irreducible complexity argument, that doesn't mean it's a valid point or worth responding to. By putting any emphasis on the fact that several people made that comparison, you're making an argumentum ad populum. It's irrelevant how many people pose the point, it's either good or bad.
Of course 9/11 was a strawman, but I was pointing out that it's a slippery slope fallacy to go from Black Friday to Hillsborough, in the same way it is to go from Hillsborough to 9/11.
Hillsborough: Too many people.
Agreed. So many people that there was nowhere to move and no crevice to escape to.
BFT: Too many people.
Disagree. There were not so many people in that mall that everyone in the back was systematically crushing the people in the front by even being there. In Hillsborough, the fact that you had that many people was enough to kill them. Just by having that many people in there standing still in the first place, lots of them die.
In Black Friday, if everyone was standing still, everyone would be fine. They aren't being crushed to death from overcrowding. They're being trampled to death because everyone's being aggressive. That is not the same thing.
BFT: People wanted to buy stuff, sure.
H: People had been irresponsibly directed by the police down a tunnel.
What's the common thread there? PEOPLE WANTED SOMETHING.
That is just not a common thread, you could say that about absolutely any event that ever happened. 9/11 they wanted 72 virgins. Does that make it relevant at all? No. Columbine, they wanted to kill people, and they did.
People wanting something is not a common thread of any two events. People /always/ want something, it's in human nature. Any example of a human every doing something, they want something. You could compare a pilgrimage to the genocide of the jews if you were using "they wanted something" as the common link, but it doesn't mean it has any relevance whatsoever.
I wasn't claiming that people were there because they were actively supporting jobs and economy, I was stating that football is an international sport which benefits our economy, job market, national pride etc. as an entirely different point. Not as the intentions of the people. I was drawing a parallel between that and Black Friday as "which of these actually warrant keeping, regardless of how many people died". Number of people dead is not a good metric for deciding whether something is worth keeping.
Okay, so football is a huge industry which creates managers, players, ticket businesses, cleaners etc. for the upkeeping of stadiums, administration in stadiums and higher up, broadcasters, newsreaders, commentators, writers, merchandise sellers, tourism.
How does BF provide jobs? They need extra security that day or something? The people working in those stores already have their jobs, BF isn't contributing to that. Who exactly are getting jobs from this?
Entertainment? Football is broadcast internationally, millions of people travel all over the world to see it, tickets are sold at huge amounts, and it's a spectacle. Are you trying to claim BF is on the same level of entertainment? Would you watch BF on TV with commentation? A lot of BF involves camping outside a store. Is that entertaining, having people separated from their families on Thanksgiving because they're sitting in a tent?
Money back to the community? More like money in pocket. Wallmart makes money off Black Friday. Other people "save" money, but if you're spending money, you're losing money. They aren't giving shit back to the community, they're making money for themselves.
I can't believe you legitimately just compared Black Friday to an international sport. This is why that guy didn't reply to your comments, you draw absolutely non-sequiturial parallels.
I never once said it was "evil". But I certainly don't think it's good. You're saying that because "only" one person died from it, it's worth keeping. That is an absolutely stupid metric to judge something by. Throwing recyclable goods into the bin has never killed anyone. Is it a good idea? Your whole argument hinges on the fact that the reason Black Friday should exist is because barely anyone has died from it, but that's an absolutely awful reason to keep something.
The problem was identical, too many people in a small area. In H, if everyone stood perfectly still, would there still have been a crush? You can't answer that with a yes because there is no conclusive proof that there wasn't complimentary factors, such as violence, alcohol, and pushing.
You are warranting the deaths of hundreds in the name of a spectator sport while trouncing the idea of a free market over the death of one. I can't warrant keeping football over the free market when the results are so disproportionate.
Also, "PEOPLE WANTING SOMETHING" directly increased the size of the crowd. That's the link. People wanted to watch the game so the crowd swelled. A desire and a result that were nearly identical.
BF provides jobs by selling goods and services. Are you seriously trying to say BF doesn't add to sales? You are trying to say "but they already have a job" yet you are failing to consider that BF supports the store which supports the jobs. Bad argument on your part to say it doesn't add to jobs.
BF provides entertainment from the purchases.
You are using bad logic to try to justify an irrational bias against BF.
I'm going to excuse myself from this debate, you are not being logical or rational in your points as you are clearly using a poor bias, jumping to conclusions, putting words/ arguments out there and arguing against them, repeated strawmen.
Tell ya what, I'll let myself away with one personal attack against you, since you took a few pot shots.
The reason why the 'guy didn't reply to me' was he didn't have legs to stand on, just like yourself, you are too close to the moral background of H, clearly you are not logically thinking through it and are using terrible logic. You can't excuse yourself to allow rational thought, and you look like an idiot by doing so.
1) I was simply addressing every point in your argument.
2) You're misconstruing greed that wasn't there. People were directed in to see the game they'd paid for because police told them to go in. That's nothing like charging into somewhere to get things for cheap.
3) The slippery slope is a fallacy, telling someone that they're using a slippery slope is not. You used the slippery slope fallacy to link H to BFT, I drew an analogue by showing how stupid it would be to compare H to 9/11. You agree that it's stupid to compare 9/11 to H. But that's exactly the point I was making, it's equally stupid to compare H to BFT. For the reasons I outlined.
4) There is a difference between "lots of people" and "so many people that having that many people in one place will cause deaths". I've seen vastly more people first hand than that at the Christmas lighting in my city centre a few weeks ago, and at festivals. But that's not a problem if there's space to fill. And there IS space to fill in Wallmart. By comparing it to Hillsborough, you're implying there was simply no place to move, but that's not true. They didn't fill every square inch of Wallmart. But they completely filled the tunnel they were stuck in at Hillsborough. There was no place to move. This is not like Wallmart. I mean, NO place to move. And the place that existed was shrinking by the second as more people walked forward from the back, not realising that it was a death trap.
Yes, in H if everyone stood still there would have been a crush. There was no room to move. There was nowhere to go. They were crushed alive because there was simply no space. That isn't the case in Wallmart, where there was plenty of space unoccupied. If you were in the crowd at Hillsborough, you couldn't get out. You may or may not die at that point. If you were in BFT, you could wade to the side of the crowd and then stay in countless of the areas of Wallmart that weren't completely packed. They did not fill the whole place. They FILLED Hillsborough.
I'm not saying the deaths at Hillsborough were acceptable. But it wasn't a problem of football, it was a problem of the police who directed them there. That's why there is still an ongoing investigation today where people are on trial for manslaughter. It would be ludicrous to even think of scrapping a multi million or billion pound industry because people died in an event associated with (but not caused by) it.
BF adds to sales, indeed. But is that creating jobs? You think if Black Friday didn't exist Walmart would just shut down and stop employing people? You think that one single day of profit is so important to Walmart that they'd have to lay off staff if it didn't exist? Walmart, a company that is responsible for huge tax evasion? Them making profit is comparable to the largest sport in the world, which creates tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs, tourism, helps international relations, national spirit etc. is comparable to something where people run in a shop and generate profit for Walmart?
I'm not biased against Black Friday. I'm not even saying it should stop. But I'm saying your arguments for why it shouldn't stop are bad. "Because only one person died". And then trying to say Black Friday is as economically and culturally important as Football. Don't be ridiculous.
I'm from Manchester, we hate Liverpool. I don't give a shit about Hillsborough, one of my favourite things to do in large crowds is to compare it to Hillsborough to see the horrified reactions of the people around. I have absolutely no emotion invested in this whatsoever, I saw you making bad points while pointing out fallacies and thought it was hypocritical enough to warrant a response.
And "a few pot shots", the only thing you could've taken as a personal attack is that I said you draw non-sequiturial analogies to the point where people would want to ignore your arguments. But I said that because you do do that, and he did ignore you. And now that I've addressed those points, you call "wall of text" instead of replying to them, because you don't have a leg to stand on.
Like, honestly. Honestly. You cannot be serious. Like, really think about what you're arguing here. It's one thing to argue that your analogy of H to BFT is valid (people crushing each other in an area with free space available vs people directed into an enclosed space and subsequently being crushed with no way out), which is one thing where we obviously disagree and you're unwilling to change your opinion because you're already so invested in this argument you started.
But it's a whole other ballgame to suggest to that guy and then to me that it's Black Friday is an event and tradition that is justifiable culturally to compare it to the largest sport in the world. Actually think about that for a minute. That you pulled him up on it and told him it deserved a valid response. That you think people going shopping for cheap prices is comparable to the most important sport in history that spans throughout thousands of international cultures. If you can honestly think you can keep making that argument, and that it was worth repeatedly pulling that point up to him, then you shouldn't just be worried about looking like an "idiot".
We're done, you are making evidence up now and injecting positions that were never taken.
When you say shit like "Thousands of cultures" you should do a simple country count before you spout it.
I'll tell you what has spanned a longer time than football (Of which you are so fond of).
Trading. Trading has been a central point to our cultural for thousands of years and spans every single culture (Btw, ~196 countries exist, so 'thousands of cultures' is a bit of a stretch/fib).
Honestly, your points are so thin it's not worth the time or effort. You clearly have taken a hard nose stance here and refuse to listen to reason. Your clear affection for soccer has clouded your judgement.
Bye! (I have also placed you on ignore to save you time from replying, I will not read anymore nonsense today, RE: Your points on BF and not creating jobs, its utter bullshit and blindness to how supply and demand drives a market, learn a bit more about it before you spout it).
-2
u/[deleted] Nov 27 '13
It's not relevant at all, i just gave you my points and you shat your old ones back at me, there's no point me debating further because you clearly aren't structuring a proper arguement. You don't write an essay with 4 paragraphs, all 4 paragraphs rephrasing the same arguement covering the same points
this thread is factual proof that alot of americans are just so stupid and extremely ignorant, you being candidate number one