American soldiers throw living puppy off cliff

[BVS]

I assumed here that everyone understands that when one posts a comment about any of these FYM subjects, the comments are one's opinion. However, if it makes people feel better, maybe we should all write "IMHO" after every post so people don't get upset and confused.

This is quite a big assumption to make.

If this were a thread about about economics, this assumption would work. For everyone's post would be their opinion about the best economic plan, and those opinions would hopefully be backed by some sort of logic and facts. But this thread was obviously not framed that way. This thread wasn't based on, do you think this video is real or not... So when you came in with statements like you knew something that 90% of the rest of the world didn't, it seemed like you had just been privied to something the Marines, CNN, and everyone else hadn't been privied to...

 

[Vincent Vega]

I assumed here that everyone understands that when one posts a comment about any of these FYM subjects, the comments are one's opinion. However, if it makes people feel better, maybe we should all write "IMHO" after every post so people don't get upset and confused.

Sorry to rain on everyone's outrage parade, but that video is a prank.

The puppy is already dead.

Fake whimpers added in after the fact, or done by a solider standing nearby. The scaling is wrong, no Doppler effect.

I'm surprised people fell for this so easily.



OK, please continue with your Two Minutes Hate session...

Your very first sentence does not indicate opinion, but fact. You cannot write in indicative form, and then say everything posted in here is somehow subjunctive form.

 

[redhotswami]

Did you really question the videotape's validity? Writing "it could be a hoax" is hardly a convincing argument.

your "this is how it is, you all are wrong" isn't exactly engaging people in discussion. pla already said it was being questioned. what's your deal?

 

[Tiger Edge]

Did you really question the videotape's validity? Writing "it could be a hoax" is hardly a convincing argument.

The point of my post wasn't to convince people that it was a hoax. I didn't know for sure, so why would I have said something I didn't believe? I was reading from different places that the validity of the video was being questioned, but I didn't make any judgment on it. (And not as if you care, but after watching it a few more times, I do think that the video looks highly suspect. I will of course have to wait for an "official" statement, whatever that may be, so I can pass judgment on the guy.)

The reason that I quoted my own post in response to yours is that you said that no one was questioning the validity of the video. I said that it was being questioned. End of story.

Edit: Yeah, what unico said!

 

[BVS]

Your very first sentence does not indicate opinion, but fact. You cannot write in indicative form, and then say everything posted in here is somehow subjunctive form.

In your opinion...

 

[4U2Play]

Your very first sentence does not indicate opinion, but fact. You cannot write in indicative form, and then say everything posted in here is somehow subjunctive form.

If one were to only read the first sentence, then you are correct.

But, if one reads the entire post, it is obvious from the third sentence alone that the first sentence is based on my opinion from viewing the videoclip, not on some information I found elsewhere, for which I surely would have posted a link or provided more info as to my "sources".

Again, not sure why this thread has turned into a discussion about my argument techniques, but it is forcing me to explain a lot of things, which I guess is useful, but a bit boring.

(Insert photo of Desi Arnaz, Jr. here)

 

[Vincent Vega]

Of course.... I mean: In my opinion of course.

The third sentence, read in context with the other sentences, still can be seen as indicative form.
And in the following posts you tried to make sure that everyone is convinced of the video being fake.

 

[4U2Play]

Let's see, some are demanding more explanations:

unico - my 'deal' is, I state my opinion, then you respond to it or not. Then, vice versa, if you wish. Seems like FYM is set up that way, please tell if I have it all wrong.

Plathegreat - Point taken. Your post a few pages ago did contain a sentence at the end that said others are questioning the validity of the video. But, you didn't explain why there were questions, which is what I tried to do. Glad to see that you find the video a bit hokey also, however.

BVM - Another point taken. I deal with lawyers all day long, and if one is not confident when they speak around them, they tune you out. My original post never stated that I "knew" something about the video that 90% of the rest of the world didn't. I simply said it was fake, which is much more harmless than the original title of the thread which states unequivocably that "American soldiers throw living puppy off cliff" as if that is a fact. My comment that the video is a fake, while omitting the "imho" that everyone here seems to demand, was a direct challenge to the thread title, using the same cocksure language and approach.

 

[4U2Play]

And in the following posts you tried to make sure that everyone is convinced of the video being fake.

Yes, this is called "persuading the audience".

Obviously, I'm doing a shitty job of it, though

 

[4U2Play]

All right, just so people don't think I'm chickening out from the chatroom beating I'm getting, let me tell you that I have to go now and won't be back here for another few days, sad as that sounds. Please don't cry.

 

[diamond]

All right, just so people don't think I'm chickening out from the chatroom beating I'm getting, let me tell you that I have to go now and won't be back here for another few days, sad as that sounds. Please don't cry.

Chin up 4U2Play, you'll find FYM to be a knee jerk mentality community.

Come back and play later.


dbs

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Marine Expelled, Another Punished Over Puppy Video

By AUDREY McAVOY
The Associated Press

HONOLULU

The Marine Corps said Wednesday it was expelling one Marine and disciplining another for their roles in a video showing a Marine throwing a puppy off a cliff while on patrol in Iraq.

The 17-second video posted on YouTube drew sharp condemnation from animal rights groups when it came to light in March.

The clip shows two Marines joking before one hurls the puppy into a rocky gully. A yelping sound is heard as it flips through the air.

"That's mean. That's mean, Motari," an off-camera Marine is heard telling the Marine who tossed the black and white dog. The off-camera Marine snickered slightly afterward.

Lance Cpl. David Motari, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment at Kaneohe Bay, is "being processed for separation" from the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps said in a news release. He also received unspecified "non-judicial punishment."

The Marine Corps didn't say what role Motari played in the clip.

The video was viewed tens of thousands of times before YouTube took it down because of a violation of the site's terms of use.

"The actions seen in the Internet video are contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine and will not be tolerated," Marine Corps Base Hawaii said in a news release. "The vast majority of Marines conduct their duties with honor and compassion that makes American people proud."

The second Marine, Sgt. Crismarvin Banez Encarnacion, also received unspecified "non-judicial" punishment.

Encarnacion is assigned to the Weapons and Field Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego.

First Lt. Binford Strickland, a Marine Corps Base Hawaii spokesman, said the service may not reveal what roles the two men played in the video because that was part of the investigation. He said releasing such information would violate the Privacy Act.

Strickland declined to provide details about the disciplinary measures taken against the men for the same reason.