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

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Not if I get them first. Self protection nowadays.

Your eagerness to kill innocent people is typical of a progressive.

You might succeed in murdering one or two people if you are lucky. However, sooner or later someone will successfully defend themselves from you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

A criminal is a criminal.

Ms. Cooper is a criminal and will be treated as such.

One dead dog.

One dead person.

Or....

Let cooler heads prevail and follow the law as a good citizen. Put a leash on your animal and none of this will happen.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

You are more of a criminal than she is. You confessed to cow tipping. And now you are calling for murder.

People have the right to protect themselves from threats. If they can't protect themselves by calling the police, then they will protect themselves themselves.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have never shied away from admitting my guilt with certain issues.

Honesty and integrity....

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Sorry, no. Honesty and integrity would never have falsely accused me of being a poseur.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Then we know where we both stand.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Yes. I have honor and integrity for real. Plus ethics and morality.

You would do well to try to emulate me.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Lol!

No thank you!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Exactly! Shoot the murderous white racist punks before they kill another fine black person.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Self defense is neither murder nor racism.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

false on all counts,

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. I have honor and integrity for real. Plus ethics and morality.

That's why you are always so frustrated with me. I naturally stand in the way of your evil schemes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Not so

1 Reply

@oralloy,

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.

oralloy wrote:

That is contrary to reality, not valid at all.

Unless you can read minds, you cannot actually attest to the reality of what was going through her mind (impossible to do). You also cannot factually state her motivations were (same thing – impossible for you to truly know).

The truth of these things (what was truly going through her mind, or what truly motivated her) can never be fully proved as truth (as we cannot read minds). That 'truth' can only ever be inferred from the surrounding facts, and from the group of inferences, conclusions can be arrived at. Neither inferences nor conclusions are facts - they are a belief in the state of things. Rephrased - Any belief you hold regarding her thought process is your inferences & conclusion from the surrounding facts. Ie it is your interpretation.

And my quoted hypothetical interpretation cannot be disproven – you can only attempt to argue inferences against it, then argue conclusions from those inferences. Same for claims of racism. You cannot disprove the racism claims. Once again, you cannot actually factually state factually precisely what was going through her mind, nor what specifically motivated her. Both are literally impossible to do. All you have left is inferences, and conclusions from the inferences. Ie. All you have (and all others here have), are interpretations.

What you claim to be ‘reality’ is simply your interpretation. That you don’t want to acknowledge this, doesn’t change it.

oralloy wrote:

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

Meanwhile, on a previous post, Oralloy said “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.”

It must just be lucky coincidence for you then that you believe he is the main problem and your post outlining your version of the timings strongly implies that he has a guilty conscience….even while the real version differs regarding the actual & specific nature of the timings <he stayed after she called police, then left after she leashed her dog> which implies he doesn’t have a guilty conscience.

So, as you are denying you implied that he had a guilty conscience, and are saying you would say it outright...but haven't....are saying he didn't have a guilty conscience?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Not so

That is incorrect. The reason why you are always so frustrated with me is because I naturally stand in the way of your evil schemes.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Unless you can read minds, you cannot actually attest to the reality of what was going through her mind (impossible to do). You also cannot factually state her motivations were (same thing - impossible for you to truly know).

Of course I can. It is plainly obvious that anyone would feel menaced if a stranger walked up to them and said they were not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure their pet away from them. And the menace would not alleviate if he then stayed nearby.

All I need to do in order to know that she felt menaced is know that she is a human being. And I suspect that an intelligent non-human life form would feel menaced in such a situation as well.

vikorr wrote:

It must just be lucky coincidence for you then that you believe he is the main problem and your post outlining your version of the timings strongly implies that he has a guilty conscience....

I question whether there was any sort of implication in my words suggesting a guilty conscience. I think you are imagining it.

But if there is an implication, it's not really lucky (or unlucky), since the question of whether or not he has a guilty conscience is completely irrelevant.

It's like saying I'm lucky that the price of tea in China has a certain value today. Since I have nothing to do with tea or with China, it really doesn't matter to me what the price of tea in China is.

vikorr wrote:

So, as you are denying you implied that he had a guilty conscience, and are saying you would say it outright...but haven't....are saying he didn't have a guilty conscience?

I haven't???

What does the following mean:

"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 assess 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."

I badly misspelled assess the first time around I see. Embarrassed

If my previous words were not enough, I reiterate my assessment that he did not have a guilty conscience.

But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Of course I can. It is plainly obvious that anyone would feel menaced if a stranger walked up to them and said they were not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure their pet away from them. And the menace would not alleviate if he then stayed nearby.

All I need to do in order to know that she felt menaced is know that she is a human being. And I suspect that an intelligent non-human life form would feel menaced in such a situation as well.

Oh we agree on that part - as already has been said multiple times. It's most of your other interpretations that we disagree on.

And no - agreeing with your interpretation does not mean you can read her mind.

Quote:

I question whether there was any sort of implication in my words suggesting a guilty conscience. I think you are imagining it.

Guilty people usually leave when the police are called...although in the US perhaps black people leave when police are called, whether they are guilty or not.

Quote:

since the question of whether or not he has a guilty conscience is completely irrelevant.

It goes towards showing intent. And as it is in front of her - a clean conscience on his part, is a huge signal to her that there was no actual menace in what he said or did. This should be absolutely obvious.

Quote:

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

Good for you. That is something.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

although in the US perhaps black people leave when police are called, whether they are guilty or not.

If I were African American, I'd immigrate to France and become a French citizen.

vikorr wrote:

And as it is in front of her - a clean conscience on his part, is a huge signal to her that there was no actual menace in what he said or did. This should be absolutely obvious.

There was no such signal. Once he did what he did, his presence near her was menacing no matter what. The only way for him to alleviate the menace was to withdraw and leave her alone.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There was no such signal. Once he did what he did, his presence near her was menacing no matter what. The only way for him to alleviate the menace was to withdraw and leave her alone.

This, once again, is purely your interpretation. My interpretation is there were clear signals of no ill intent, right in front of her:

- recording (aggressors don't usually record. They can, but it is usually the person worried about false accusations that does in these situations)
- not moving towards her in any way (no threatening movements)
- agreeing with her when she said she'd call police (please do) <clear conscience>
- staying after she called police (clear conscience)
- talking in a reasonable voice with her

So my version of no ill-intent has a lot supporting it - that occurred right in front of her.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

This, once again, is purely your interpretation.

That is incorrect. It is an objective fact that the only way for him to alleviate the menace was to withdraw completely.

vikorr wrote:

My interpretation is there were clear signals of no ill intent, right in front of her:

- recording (aggressors don't usually record. They can, but it is usually the person worried about false accusations that does in these situations)
- not moving towards her in any way (no threatening movements)
- agreeing with her when she said she'd call police (please do) <clear conscience>
- staying after she called police (clear conscience)
- talking in a reasonable voice with her

So my version of no ill-intent has a lot supporting it - that occurred right in front of her.

That interpretation is contrary to reality. The only way for him to remove the menace that he posed at that point was to withdraw completely.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know