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

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. I only take the white person's side when the white person is in the right.

Which the white people somehow always end up being "in the right" in your eyes when it comes to white people killing black people....despite you not knowing the actual facts (Zimmerman stalking Martin, and then the unknown minutes before he killed Martin), and despite you seeing entirely unreasonable behaviour by the white people (both the killers of Armoud who hunted him down and gunned him down, and NY dog lady)..barely acknowleding this perspective....for the only person in your eyes that is in the wrong, has always been the black person.

Quote:

No, because he was threatening her and her pet.

With vague words that could mean anything...coupled with very calm behaviour (which favours the black guys version)....but you wish only to see a nasty threat by a black person...so again, demonstratably one sided, racist behaviour.

Quote:

Trayvon stalked and tried to murder Mr. Zimmerman, who fired his gun in self defense to save his life.

You do not know this. This is one possibility. The other that Zimmerman went hunting for him. So again, demonstrating just how one sided and racist you are.

Quote:

Since white people get lynched for calling the police when they feel threatened by a minority, it is reasonable for them to instead take matters into their own hands when they feel threatened.

And again demonstrating one sided racist behaviour:
- he was jogging, in jogging gear, and cleary no threat
- they racistly described him as 'hauling ass'...when he was clearly jogging
- they racistly armed up (presuming because he is black he is a threat while jogging)
- they stalked the black man down (so they can't be particularly frightened of him).
- he tried to defend his life, with physical force limited only to the gun they were trying to kill him with
- they killed him
- you say they were in the right to kill him

Your "Truth and justice" that always falls firmly in favour of the white person, barely acknowledging any perspective of the black people you villify. You being unredeemably racist cannot even admit how much your favour whites over blacks.....your one sided racism is so blatantly on display that it is amazing you keep trying to justify it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

refers to "evil". childishh name calling.

Condemnation of atrocities is neither childish nor name-calling.

MontereyJack wrote:

Also all your clear racist attempts to exonerate whites and demonize blacks

Defending truth and justice is not even remotely racist. You and Vikorr are the only racists here.

MontereyJack wrote:

fail.

The only person here who has failed to back up his claims is you.

MontereyJack wrote:

More time than i have at the moment to prove that,

You've never proved anything, and you never will.

MontereyJack wrote:

but it is very true.

There is nothing true about your hypocrisy. You and Vikorr are the only racists here.

MontereyJack wrote:

Vikor is right.

Vikorr is an anti-white racist, and so are you. There is nothing true about yours and his lies about me.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Vikorr is an anti-racist

Rofl. You always find me admitting two sides to the story, and admitting when something isn't known...in all those cases.

The only person who accedes to only one side of such stories...is you.

You know this. You know its wrong of you...but you don't want to process it and become a better person. You would rather the world be black and white (figuratively) and comfortable to you.

You can choose to be better than what you are being.

1 Reply

Being unwilling to consider both sides of the story / being willing to consider only one side of the story, otherwise known as:
- bias
- discrimination
- double standards; etc
has no place in justice, which seeks to be fair and even handed. It has no place in truth, as just a part picture of an event can be very deceiving. Oralloy claims to be only interested in justice and truth...then goes about dimissing one half / side of the story, which side is necessary to both (truth and justice).

But bias, discrimination, and double standards are at the heart of racism.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You wwere characterizing "progressives. childish name-calling. guilty as charged.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have proved several times with cites from the trial that Zimmerman profiled, chased down, and attacked trayvon, not the other way round. you're wrong with the coopers. Amy cooper was never threatened by anything chris cooper did. He was ten feet away and TOLD her to call the cops, becuase he was not threatening her at all. she was in clear violation of the law and refused to correct that. She should have just walked away with her illegal dog, but she refused to do that and tried to get thecops to lynch him. As a result of her public action she was publicly shamed and admitted her guilt. As usual you take the side of the guilty white rather than the innocent black and tha't's racist. The city government of NYC agreed with chris and was looking to charge her. And that's not an appeal to authority. That's how the justice system works. your bias shows itself repeatedly. vikorr is all too right.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Which the white people somehow always end up being "in the right" in your eyes when it comes to white people killing black people....

White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to rape and murder them.

vikorr wrote:

despite you not knowing the actual facts (Zimmerman stalking Martin, and then the unknown minutes before he killed Martin),

Wrong. The confrontation took place in the same spot where Mr. Zimmerman was advised that following Trayvon was a bad idea.

vikorr wrote:

and despite you seeing entirely unreasonable behaviour by the white people (both the killers of Armoud who hunted him down and gunned him down, and NY dog lady)..

Wrong. It is entirely reasonable for a woman to call the police when a strange man threatens her and her pet in the park.

It is entirely reasonable for white people to take matters into their own hands when they feel threatened by a minority, and they know they will be lynched and have their lives destroyed for calling the police.

vikorr wrote:

..barely acknowleding this perspective....for the only person in your eyes that is in the wrong, has always been the black person.

I only treat the black person as being in the wrong when they actually are in the wrong.

vikorr wrote:

With vague words that could mean anything...coupled with very calm behaviour (which favours the black guys version)....but you wish only to see a nasty threat by a black person...so again, demonstratably one sided, racist behaviour.

The only racists here are you and MJ denying that she found his threats threatening.

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Trayvon stalked and tried to murder Mr. Zimmerman, who fired his gun in self defense to save his life.

You do not know this.

Yes I do. The evidence shows clearly that this is what happened.

vikorr wrote:

This is one possibility. The other that Zimmerman went hunting for him.

That possibility is directly contradicted by the actual evidence.

vikorr wrote:

So again, demonstrating just how one sided and racist you are.

There is nothing racist about sticking to truth and justice. The only racists here are you and MJ.

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Since white people get lynched for calling the police when they feel threatened by a minority, it is reasonable for them to instead take matters into their own hands when they feel threatened.

And again demonstrating one sided racist behaviour:

There is nothing racist about white people taking matters into their own hands when they feel threatened by a minority, when they know they will be lynched and have their lives destroyed if they try to call the police.

vikorr wrote:

- he was jogging, in jogging gear, and cleary no threat

Wrong. They thought he was a burglar. So they did find him threatening.

vikorr wrote:

- they racistly described him as 'hauling ass'...when he was clearly jogging

Hardly racist. You're being silly.

vikorr wrote:

- they racistly armed up (presuming because he is black he is a threat while jogging)

Hardly racist. You're being silly.

vikorr wrote:

- they stalked the black man down (so they can't be particularly frightened of him).
- he tried to defend his life, with physical force limited only to the gun they were trying to kill him with
- they killed him
- you say they were in the right to kill him

It is reasonable for white people to take matters into their own hands when they feel threatened by a minority, when they know they will be lynched and have their lives destroyed if they dare to call the police.

vikorr wrote:

Your "Truth and justice" that always falls firmly in favour of the white person, barely acknowledging any perspective of the black people you villify.

It is racist of you to deny facts and justice when they favor white people.

vikorr wrote:

You being unredeemably racist cannot even admit how much your favour whites over blacks.....your one sided racism is so blatantly on display that it is amazing you keep trying to justify it.

You're a liar. You and MJ are the only racists here.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Vikorr is an anti-racist

Rofl.

You being such a liar, it is no surprise that you lied about what I said.

You are not anti-racist. You are more racist than the KKK.

vikorr wrote:

You always find me admitting two sides to the story, and admitting when something isn't known...in all those cases.

That's another one of your many lies.

You've yet to admit that Amy Cooper legitimately felt threatened.

vikorr wrote:

The only person who accedes to only one side of such stories...is you.

Another one of your many lies. What I do is follow the facts and the evidence.

vikorr wrote:

You know this. You know its wrong of you...but you don't want to process it and become a better person. You would rather the world be black and white (figuratively) and comfortable to you.

There is nothing even remotely wrong about me defending truth and justice.

vikorr wrote:

You can choose to be better than what you are being.

I can't improve on perfection.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It should be noted that when oralloy talks about the "three s's" they are "Shoot, Shovel, Shut up", i. e. kill someone, bury them, and don't tell anyone about it. He is, in short, desirous of murdering anyone who disagrees with you or bothers you, And so far he's to my knowledge only said that was the appropriate action in black and white interactions, and always against the black person. And, yes, that's racist, as well as probably violating the TOS.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. Self defense is not murder.

There is nothing racist about white people protecting themselves when black people try to rape or murder them.

If black people don't want people to defend themselves against them, then they should stop violently attacking people.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Being unwilling to consider both sides of the story / being willing to consider only one side of the story, otherwise known as:
- bias
- discrimination
- double standards; etc
has no place in justice, which seeks to be fair and even handed. It has no place in truth, as just a part picture of an event can be very deceiving.

That is an excellent description of why you are the enemy of truth and justice.

vikorr wrote:

Oralloy claims to be only interested in justice and truth...then goes about dimissing one half / side of the story, which side is necessary to both (truth and justice).

Wrong. What I do is follow facts and evidence.

vikorr wrote:

But bias, discrimination, and double standards are at the heart of racism.

That's you in a nutshell.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You were characterizing "progressives. childish name-calling. guilty as charged.

Wrong again. Condemnation of atrocities is neither childish nor name-calling.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I have proved several times with cites from the trial that Zimmerman profiled, chased down, and attacked trayvon, not the other way round.

You've done no such thing.

But I've proved, with actual concrete evidence, that Trayvon was the attacker and Mr. Zimmerman fired only in self defense to save his life.

MontereyJack wrote:

you're wrong with the coopers. Amy cooper was never threatened by anything chris cooper did. He was ten feet away and TOLD her to call the cops, becuase he was not threatening her at all.

Wrong. The thug bragged on his Facebook page about how he had threatened her.

MontereyJack wrote:

she was in clear violation of the law and refused to correct that. She should have just walked away with her illegal dog, but she refused to do that and tried to get thecops to lynch him. As a result of her public action she was publicly shamed and admitted her guilt.

This is why the proper way for white people to protect themselves when they feel threatened by a minority is to practice the three S's instead of calling the police.

MontereyJack wrote:

As usual you take the side of the guilty white rather than the innocent black and tha't's racist.

There is nothing guilty about a white person wanting to protect themselves when they feel threatened.

MontereyJack wrote:

The city government of NYC agreed with chris and was looking to charge her. And that's not an appeal to authority. That's how the justice system works.

This is why the proper way for white people to protect themselves when they feel threatened by a minority is to practice the three S's instead of calling the police.

MontereyJack wrote:

your bias shows itself repeatedly.

I have a natural leaning towards truth and justice.

MontereyJack wrote:

vikorr is all too right.

Vikorr is a racist who never tells the truth.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Unlike most people on this forum - I think you are likely to be fairly intelligent... but that this intelligence is coupled with a very strict wiring that is designed to keep things comfortable for you., which drives you to see your opinions as facts, to take extreme views, to dismiss one side of the story with barely given consideration to the other...so that you can be comfortable with who you are, and what is out there in the world...all while telling yourself that it is, absolutely, everyone else that is the problem.

The problem is, you are also likely to know this, but choose do nothing about it. Instead, you choose to double down on your own issues.

Try finding and understanding the greys. Everyone who does becomes a better person.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The trial testimony clearly shows zim was trhe aggressor, not trayvon. Chris Cooper was a Harvard educated nerdy bird watcher, hardly a thug, and all he ever did was try to get the dog leashed as the law said. No threats from him.
Amy was the thug.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Well, there was a vague ' you won't like the outcome' (or similar) which could mean any of:
- I'll call the (whoever does the fines)
- you'll get a fine
- I'll publish you on facebook and you'll face ridicule
- I'll do X to you
Of course context is important to interpretation, and the context is of him asking her to leash her dog, him remaining calm despite her agression, him filming her hystrionics, him holding his ground at a distance (and her moving towards him, never the other way around)...so the meaning, in context, is that of putting the video up on social media, or giving it to a department for the purpose of fines...

...but oralloy doesn't want to consider context in his interpretation - he only wants to see what makes him comfortable with the situation. So he removes the words from their context so that he can assume the harshest interpretation available, then condemns the black guy and supports the white girl.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Amy was never threatened. Trayvon was never threatening. The facts are, oralloy is trying to legalize murder of blacks by whites for a mere whim. that's racist.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. The thug bragged on his Facebook page about how he threatened Amy.

Trayvon was in the process of beating someone to death when he was shot. That's pretty threatening.

Self defense is neither racist nor murder. White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to rape and murder them.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Unlike most people on this forum - I think you are likely to be fairly intelligent... but that this intelligence is coupled with a very strict wiring that is designed to keep things comfortable for you.,

Not to keep things comfortable. To focus on the truth.

vikorr wrote:

which drives you to see your opinions as facts,

No. I see facts as facts.

vikorr wrote:

to take extreme views, to dismiss one side of the story with barely given consideration to the other...

I go where the truth goes.

vikorr wrote:

so that you can be comfortable with who you are, and what is out there in the world...

No. It's because the truth is the truth.

vikorr wrote:

all while telling yourself that it is, absolutely, everyone else that is the problem.

No. It's progressives that are the problem.

vikorr wrote:

The problem is, you are also likely to know this, but choose do nothing about it. Instead, you choose to double down on your own issues.
Try finding and understanding the greys. Everyone who does becomes a better person.

When it comes to the truth, there are no greys.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Well, there was a vague 'you won't like the outcome' (or similar) which could mean any of:
- I'll call the (whoever does the fines)
- you'll get a fine
- I'll publish you on facebook and you'll face ridicule
- I'll do X to you
Of course context is important to interpretation, and the context is of him asking her to leash her dog, him remaining calm despite her agression,

She offered no aggression.

vikorr wrote:

him filming her hystrionics, him holding his ground at a distance (and her moving towards him, never the other way around)...so the meaning, in context, is that of putting the video up on social media, or giving it to a department for the purpose of fines...
...but oralloy doesn't want to consider context in his interpretation

That's because context is 100% irrelevant.

She legitimately felt threatened. Period. That is the only thing that is relevant.

vikorr wrote:

he only wants to see what makes him comfortable with the situation.

No. I only care about the truth.

vikorr wrote:

So he removes the words from their context so that he can assume the harshest interpretation available, then condemns the black guy and supports the white girl.

You are half right. I do support the white girl. She legitimately felt threatened and had the right to protect herself.

I did not however condemn the black guy.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know