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

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

oralloy wrote:
This is a fact: Progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties.
This is a fact: The only reason why progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties is because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Neither of those "facts" are in fact facts. They are as much opinions as the demented opinions you agree are your opinions.

That is incorrect. They are facts.

And as proof, here is a post where you praise the deliberate violation of people's civil liberties:

https://able2know.org/topic/203766-209#post-5227079

Note the fact that no one can propose any alternative motivation for doing this other than the joy that progressives get from violating people's civil liberties.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your opinion, not fact, about BLM has been wrong every time you offer it.

Wrong. Opinions are neither right nor wrong.

Wrong again. What I offered was fact, not opinion.

And wrong yet again. The facts that I posted are entirely correct.

BLM is all about wanting to prevent police officers from defending themselves when black people murder them.

MontereyJack wrote:

To not want police to wrongfully kill their fellow people,

It isn't wrong for police officers to defend themselves when black people try to murder them.

MontereyJack wrote:

which is their demand,

That is incorrect. BLM demands that police officers be prevented from defending themselves when black people murder them.

MontereyJack wrote:

is in no way logically the same as wanting to kill police.

It is a pretty straightforward step from "preventing the police from defending themselves when they are being murdered" to "murdering the police".

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You've got it wrong. Oralloy states something he alleges is fact, which is usually questionasble at best and is his interpretation of the data, which is an interpretation and not the data itself.

All my facts can be backed up with reliable cites.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

wrong. BLM never made statements about killing police. That's purely the extremist right's anti-black racism. They simply want police to stop killing them.

They want police to stop killing them in self defense when they try to murder police officers.

MontereyJack wrote:

George floyd,

Nothing to do with BLM.

MontereyJack wrote:

ahmad arberry,

Since white people are not allowed to call the police when they feel threatened by a minority, it is to be expected that they will handle things themselves when they feel threatened.

MontereyJack wrote:

breona taylor,

Nothing to do with BLM, but no knock warrants need to be outlawed without exception.

MontereyJack wrote:

trayvon martin.

This is a perfect example of BLM saying that white people should not be allowed to defend themselves when a black person murders them.

MontereyJack wrote:

That's part of a widespread generations-long pattern.

A pattern of people defending themselves when black people try to murder them.

MontereyJack wrote:

BLM is not responsible for everything anyone says.

True.

They are however responsible for what they say themselves.

MontereyJack wrote:

BLM is not evil, racism is evil.

BLM is both racist and evil.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

They want police to stop killing them. PERIOD. FULL STOP. THAT'S KT.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

George Floyd, Ahmad, Breona, and Trayvon are perfect example of why there is a BLM, and the maltreatment of blacks by cops (and by a lot of whites in general)(e.g. Amy Cooper). just keeps happening. The only logic you seem to recognize is illogic.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

.SCOTUS which is the final arbiter for what is a violation of civil liberties does not agree with you. Therefore you are wrong. That's the law. I'll go with the Constiution, not you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No joy. Disgust that you keep enabling massive fatal violations of people's civil rights. You must get great joy from that, you do it so often, and I can see no other reason for you to do it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That's pure opinion and a malicious opinion at that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

vikorr wrote:

I provided that his 'threat' was very vague and could have meant several different things
- you patently ignored all other possible meanings other than the one you wished to focus on

oralloy wrote:

That's because the possibility of those other meanings is completely irrelevant.

Context is always important to interpreting the message. Numerous body language experts say it is around 70-85% of the message. Tone is a large percentage of the remaining message. Each of the things I mentioned related to body language and tone. Where the words are vague, the context becomes even more important. Any interpretation that ignores such context is flawed...or a really lucky guess. But in any event, the only people who want to ignore context are those with an agenda. Like your agenda driven bias.

vikorr wrote:

- you claimed he did approach her
I pointed out that his own words (which you use as evidence he approached her) did not say he approached her, and that in the video he obviously was telling her not to approach him, and he never approached her
- you patently ignore that you were wrong

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. I claimed that he tried to lure her pet away from her.

Incorrect. Here is the link where you said "He did make a move towards her." This was patently wrong, which you continue to ignore.

Your desire to ignore context, and your desire to ignore any other possibility than the one you assign, and your desire to ignore when you are wrong is driven by deep seated bias.

1 Reply

I just had an excellent game of Warsong Gulch.

We had a tough opponent, and they made us fight for it, but we ultimately won 3-0. And I scored the middle flag!

Very Happy

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Good for you skippy, now you can purchase your own Island. Congrats

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Which is absolutely nonresponsive to the fact that too many innocent people are dying at police hands or being treated unfairly simply because they're not white. Justify the cop who walked into the wrong apartment and killed the its lega black tenant,, thnking he was in her apartment. or the black guy shot in his relative's yard holding a cell[hone which the cop mistook for a gun. Problem is, too many hair triggers kill too many black folk.

That has little to do with BLM, who instead protest cases where people justifiably defend themselves from black people.

It's also a bit racist to say that it is wrong for innocent black people to be killed but not voice any opposition to innocent white people being killed.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

oralloy wrote:
This is a fact: Progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties.

This is a biased opinion stated as if it were factual.

It is entirely factual.

Here is a post where MJ praises the deliberate violation of people's civil liberties:
https://able2know.org/topic/203766-209#post-5227079

hightor wrote:

First thing, this person uses the term "progressive" as a grab bag for anyone to the left of George W. Bush. But most people don't have the power to "violate people's rights." Someone who opposes widespread access to firearms isn't violating anyone's rights by holding that belief. The only people who can deliberately violate anyone's civil liberties are judges and lawmakers, as in the violation of reproductive freedoms by statute or judicial decision.

Sophstry.

hightor wrote:

oralloy wrote:
This is a fact: The only reason why progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties is because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

That is not factual statement either.

My statement is entirely factual.

If there were any other alternative motivation for violating people's civil liberties, people could list what that motivation is.

However, no one can ever list any other alternative motivation for violating people's civil liberties.

hightor wrote:

I challenge the person to provide 1) an example of a "progressive" who violated people's civil liberties,

Here is a post where MJ praises the deliberate violation of people's civil liberties:
https://able2know.org/topic/203766-209#post-5227079

hightor wrote:

and 2) prove that the "progressive's" sole reason for this action was personal enjoyment.

The fact that no one can put forth any alternative motivation is evidence that there is no other motivation.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

NealNealNeal wrote:
How many times do people on this board demean people of low intelligence.

oralloy does it all the time.

Only in self defense.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

They want police to stop killing them. PERIOD. FULL STOP. THAT'S KT.

If they don't want the police to defend themselves against them, then they should stop trying to murder police officers.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

George Floyd, Ahmad, Breona, and Trayvon are perfect example of why there is a BLM,

BLM are only about #2 and #4 in your list.

BLM's thing is preventing people from defending themselves when black people murder them.

Mr. Zimmerman's justified self defense against Trayvon is the perfect example of what BLM objects to.

MontereyJack wrote:

and the maltreatment of blacks by cops (and by a lot of whites in general)(e.g. Amy Cooper).

Wrong again. Self defense is not maltreatment.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

.SCOTUS which is the final arbiter for what is a violation of civil liberties does not agree with you. Therefore you are wrong.

Well first, appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

And second, you have no basis for saying that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me.

Although since your statement is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter whether they agree or not.

MontereyJack wrote:

That's the law.

No it isn't.

MontereyJack wrote:

I'll go with the Constiution, not you.

You are going against the Constitution when you try to violate people's civil liberties.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The extent of George Flloyds treatment was maltreatment. The maltreatement was evidenced by three irrefutable facts:
- he died
- there was no underlying medical issue causing his death
- it was police restricting his ability to breath that caused his death

In the International Rules and Standards of Policing, the UN has the following very common sense things to say:

Quote:

Law enforcement officials must then use force and firearms
only as far as is necessary to achieve their objective. Law
enforcement officials shall not apply force at all if the
objective can be achieved without it and, where this is not
possible, they shall resort only to the minimum force needed
for that purpose and ensure that as little damage and injury
as possible occurs...

People who have been deprived of their freedom are in
a situation of extreme vulnerability. It is therefore of
particular importance to safeguard the human right...

The State is responsible for the well-being of all those in
its custody...

Virtually all of these Standards were breached. While he contributed to his initial arrest and handling - handling is an ongoing assessment. The right to detain a citizen does not confer police the right to restrict a persons breathing for a long period of time. A person saying over and over "I can't breathe" should never, in any circumstances be ignored. Reassessment of positioning, restraints, and manpower present would have enabled other options than the one taken. A persons mere non-cooperation is also not licence for a death sentence. As time wore on in his arrest process, video footage shows there was no need for anyone to kneel on his neck for 9 minutes.

Maltreatment was irrefutably present.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

George Floyd was also nothing to do with Black Lives Matter.

BLM is about trying to lynch people who justifiably defend themselves against black people who try to harm them.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know