45
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 01:50 pm
@neptuneblue,
The fullest extent of the law for not leashing your dog in the park won't be more than a ticket.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 01:52 pm
@neptuneblue,
I learned something today, thanks to Walter....."Fudd's". It fits perfectly.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 01:57 pm
@oralloy,
As I say, there s no evidence his aim was anything other than to put the dog on a leash, which she surely would not like since she refused unlawfully to do so, and under NY law if he killed the dog, which I repeat there was no evidene was his aim and is purely your own unfounded hyperbolic opinion, it's still only a misdemeanor and absolutely no legal justification for murder. She would probably get life, as would you if you did it.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 01:58 pm
@MontereyJack,
Wrong again. He told her that she wasn't going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away.

Defending your pet from a killer is not murder in any way. And slipping away before the police arrived would mean that she would not receive any punishment at all.

It is clearly the least-bad option that people have now that they are not allowed to call the police on a minority without having their lives destroyed.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 02:08 pm
@oralloy,
You are in the rather tenuous legal position here of advocating killing someone for jaywalking.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 02:09 pm
@MontereyJack,
I never advocated killing anyone for jaywalking.

I spoke of killing people to protect the life of your pet.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 02:19 pm
@oralloy,
that's your position. own up to it,
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 02:37 pm
@MontereyJack,
It is not my position at all.

That you need to misrepresent my position should be a clue to you that your own position is weak.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  6  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2020 05:31 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Yes. Having just threatened her and tried to grab her pet (from her perspective), his presence near her was menacing no matter what he was doing. The only way for him to end the menace was to retreat and leave her alone.
So what you are saying is you can see no behaviour or words that are menacing on that video, and the only thing you can come up with is his mere presence must be menacing. Even while she is the one that walks up to him, and point s finger at him...

The only person seen engaging in menacing behaviour on the video, is her.
Quote:
Recording her was an intrusion that compounded the menace.
Yep. She certainly wouldn't want to be held accountable for her histrionics. Apparently just couldn't help herself though. She still menaced him on video.

Quote:
Reality is that she found him quite menacing
Actually that's purely your interpretation. Just as valid is she is an utter racist who didn't like a lesser being (a black man) telling her to leash her dog, and started attacking him in the only way she felt able. This too is an interpretation and an extreme one at that - but it's made to show you that your 'reality' is an interpretation.

My view is that she probably suffers from some form of anxiety, which kept building despite his reasonable behaviour (after the dog incident), and her (mildly) racist side came out. That too is a perspective. I wouldn't call it reality. I would simply say that I think it is very strongly supported by the evidence.

Quote:
What timings and how are they relevant?
It should be obvious - in your version of the timings 'he left after she called the cops' - your version implies he's got a guilty conscience. The video shows he stayed after she called the cops (the actual timing implies he doesn't have a guilty conscience) and he left after she leashed her dog (saying thankyou. Ie he left once she started following the rules of the park, which he had asked her to do)

Quote:
I described her actions. And you have repeatedly called her a racist for her actions.
Err...your 'descriptions' of her actions leave out large swathes of both her actions, and her words, and her tone, and the context (all of his actions). Mostly you just seem interested in assigning motivations that suit what you want.

I have repeatedly said she's engaged in racism based on (ie. with explanation provided relating to):
- all of her actions
- all of her words
- taken in context with the situation, including
- all of the guys words
- all of the guys actions


Your summaries (here, saying I based calling her racist on just her actions) seem to be often inaccurate in this discussion (ie. not fitting with reality).

Quote:
Well you did say I was trying to put words in your mouth...

....The quotes prove that you accused her of racism.
Which has never been under dispute. The issue was you trying to:
- remove those quotes from their actual explanation, then
- trying to put a new explanation on them, and inferring such is my actual explanation (ie. putting words in my mouth)

I'm surprised you keep on with this nonsense line. You've been told multiple times now that if you removed the actual context (and explanation) of why it was racist - then I would agree with your 'new interpretation' (ie. new version of events) not being racist

Quote:
The false accusations
Purely your interpretation. I hold a different one.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 02:00 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
So what you are saying is you can see no behaviour or words that are menacing on that video, and the only thing you can come up with is his mere presence must be menacing.

Yes. Actual reality is the only thing that I can come up with.

When a stranger delivers what can easily be viewed as a threat to harm a woman or her pet, and then commits an act that can easily be viewed as an attempt to harm her pet, him then standing around near her is going to be viewed as menacing even if he is not currently doing anything.


vikorr wrote:
Even while she is the one that walks up to him, and point s finger at him...
The only person seen engaging in menacing behaviour on the video, is her.

Trying to scare off a menacing threat is perfectly reasonable behavior.


vikorr wrote:
Yep. She certainly wouldn't want to be held accountable for her histrionics.

The notion that someone can be punished for calling the police when a black man tries to kill her pet is why the proper way to deal with threatening minorities is to shoot them and then quietly slip away before the police arrive.


vikorr wrote:
Apparently just couldn't help herself though. She still menaced him on video.

A reasonable attempt to make him go away and stop menacing her.


vikorr wrote:
Actually that's purely your interpretation.

That is incorrect. It is an obvious fact that when a stranger tells a woman that she isn't going to like what he is about to do and then tries to lure her pet away from her that she is going to find that quite menacing.


vikorr wrote:
Just as valid is she is an utter racist who didn't like a lesser being (a black man) telling her to leash her dog, and started attacking him in the only way she felt able.

That is contrary to reality, not valid at all.


vikorr wrote:
This too is an interpretation and an extreme one at that - but it's made to show you that your 'reality' is an interpretation.

Reality is not an interpretation.


vikorr wrote:
My view is that she probably suffers from some form of anxiety, which kept building despite his reasonable behaviour (after the dog incident), and her (mildly) racist side came out. That too is a perspective. I wouldn't call it reality. I would simply say that I think it is very strongly supported by the evidence.

Calling the police when a black man is menacing you isn't racist.


vikorr wrote:
It should be obvious - in your version of the timings 'he left after she called the cops' - your version implies he's got a guilty conscience. The video shows he stayed after she called the cops (the actual timing implies he doesn't have a guilty conscience) and he left after she leashed her dog (saying thankyou. Ie he left once she started following the rules of the park, which he had asked her to do)

I don't imply things. I come right out and say them. I did not say anything about a guilty conscience.

My statements...

"She felt threatened continuously until the guy went away and stopped menacing her."
"The threat did not alleviate until after the guy went away and stopped menacing her. And he did not do that until after she called the police."

...are purely about pointing out that she legitimately found his presence menacing when he was recording the video.


Whatever is on his conscience is completely irrelevant, and I don't like to waste words on irrelevancies. I like to get straight to the point.

If you are curious about my assessment, I asses that he indeed did not have a guilty conscience.

But so what? It does not change the fact that she legitimately found his presence to be menacing, and had every right to try to protect herself.


vikorr wrote:
Err...your 'descriptions' of her actions leave out large swathes of both her actions, and her words, and her tone, and the context (all of his actions).

That is incorrect. My description accurately describes all of her actions. Note how when you try to list supposed exceptions to my description of her actions, I am able to point out how they are not an exception at all.

His actions are not relevant. Having delivered what could easily be seen as an ominous threat, and having committed an act which could easily be seen as an attempt to harm her pet, his continued presence was menacing no matter what he did.


vikorr wrote:
Mostly you just seem interested in assigning motivations that suit what you want.

It is obvious that a stranger who said and did what he said and did will be seen as menacing.


vikorr wrote:
I have repeatedly said she's engaged in racism based on (ie. with explanation provided relating to):
- all of her actions
- all of her words
- taken in context with the situation, including
- all of the guys words
- all of the guys actions

All she did was call the police when a stranger said that she was not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her.


vikorr wrote:
Your summaries (here, saying I based calling her racist on just her actions) seem to be often inaccurate in this discussion (ie. not fitting with reality).

That is incorrect. Everything that I am saying is consistent with reality.


vikorr wrote:
Which has never been under dispute. The issue was you trying to:
- remove those quotes from their actual explanation, then

You asked where you had called her a racist. I pointed out where you called her a racist.


vikorr wrote:
- trying to put a new explanation on them, and inferring such is my actual explanation (ie. putting words in my mouth)

Pointing out reality is not putting words in your mouth. It is merely stating what the facts actually are.


vikorr wrote:
I'm surprised you keep on with this nonsense line. You've been told multiple times now that if you removed the actual context (and explanation) of why it was racist - then I would agree with your 'new interpretation' (ie. new version of events) not being racist

So your untrue accusation of racism is based on untrue statements about her behavior. That does not make any of it any less untrue.


vikorr wrote:
Purely your interpretation. I hold a different one.

That is incorrect. It is a fact that the accusations of racism are false.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 02:12 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
When a stranger delivers what can easily be viewed as a threat to harm a woman or her pet,

Black folks aren't allowed to talk to white people, huh? And not even to their pet...
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 02:16 am
@Olivier5,
They are not allowed to kill people's pets.

People have the right to protect themselves when they try to do so.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 04:40 am
@Olivier5,
>You've done it again., Pulled something entirely out of your own imagination to use against a black person who showed absolutely no intention of doing it. NONE. Pure racist fantasy and hyperbolic exaggeration on your part. And don't quote what he said again because it does NOT bear you out.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 04:43 am
@MontereyJack,
I pulled nothing out of my imagination.

He said that she was not going to like what he was about to do and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

I realize that progressives would find it convenient if I stopped posting facts, but no. I'm not going to stop telling the truth.

Your hero Stalin is dead. You don't get to silence truth tellers anymore.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 05:45 am
@oralloy,
Right. You just proved that you pulled it totally out of your imagination. He said nothing about killing her dog.You imagined that part yourself. Thanks.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 05:47 am
@MontereyJack,
Wrong again. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do. And then he tried to lure her pet away from her.
justaguy2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 06:32 am
@izzythepush,
I believe ya. Wink

oralloy reminds of a guy I used to live with back in the mid to late 2000's, almost right down to the word literally. There was nothing you could tell him, if he hadn't done it himself before, he knew someone the had and was going to have dinner with the state champion of whatever it was, you name it, didn't matter. Although, even he wasn't a racist like oralloy seems to be in fairness. Even when I told him point blank he was full of ****, he reacted exactly the same as oralloy does here. And he was as narcissistic as they come - just like oralloy.

The sad things are, they don't even realize they've already lost the argument, and even worse, expect you prove them wrong when they didn't have the facts to begin with and you already have. The other sad thing is that, I could have ended up just like the same chap and oralloy if another racist and very narcissistic individual was actually any significant part of my life. I used to wonder what I'd done wrong, but looking at it from the other angle; I'm glad he was never any significant part of my life - perhaps someone was looking out for me after all...

Take care izzythepush Smile
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 06:35 am
@justaguy2,
You sure are dishonest. I've exhibited none of the traits that you just accused me of. Neither am I in any way a racist.

You just lie about people because you aren't capable of producing an intelligent argument.

The reason why I don't realize that I've lost the argument is because I haven't. The only thing you've done is spout childish name-calling. Childish name-calling doesn't win arguments in the real world.

You don't have any facts. If you did you would have presented an argument instead of engaging in childish name-calling.

Your claim that I lack facts is pretty silly considering your failure to challenge anything that I've said.

You are certainly free to not try to prove me wrong if you don't wish to. But if you don't, then your claims that I am wrong are just a bunch of hot air.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 06:54 am
@oralloy,
Are black people allowed to tell white people to keep their dog on leash?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 07:11 am
@justaguy2,
The irony is that his alleged IQ is his only response to anyone pointing out how daft he is. Not anything he’s written on here, nothing remotely erudite, insightful or even some pithy epigrammatic piece of wit.

All there is is the same repetitive, grunting, monolithic prose that could have been written by someone with no IQ at all.

You take care as well.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/11/2020 at 07:35:29