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

Facts are facts.

I agree with the literal meaning, but not with your meaning. And no - I don't agree that your meaning is the literal meaning.

Well, you're wrong.

Which is once again, your opinion, though you'll no doubt claim fact, seeing as you can't tell the two apart.

These conversations are very circular.

That is incorrect. "That you are wrong" is a fact.

And wrong again. I can very easily tell the two apart.

Seems I was right

In predicting that I would claim it is a factual matter, yes you were correct.

A lot of the discussion concerns certain events that have recently occurred. There are questions of "facts and opinions".
Let me express a possible discussion between Ollie and me:

Ollie: People say it is racist for someone to kill a black person, right?
Me: Yes
Ollie: By category of race who kills the most blacks?
Me: According to statistics (facts) the leading killer of blacks are other blacks.
So then the greatest racists against black people are BLACK PEOPLE.

I believe that Ollie is simply tired of some blacks making themselves out to be "VICTIMS". Many black people have gotten past this mode of thought. They don't have to force this "false blame" on whites. They don't need to play this power game.

Ollie is fine in his thinking. He rejects my plea to bend over backwards for the sake of blacks.

There is a section of the black population that needs to go back to personal morality.

Hi NNN

Both Oralloy and I would disagree that it is racist merely to kill a black person. Racism doesn't exist in the mere killing - it exists in:
- application of a negative to an entire group (which is not Oralloys issue); or
- application of a positive to an entire group to the detriment of other groups; or
- a double standard/ bias / discrimination/ etc based on race

Nor should he bend over backwards for the sake of black people. Nor should he give up the right to defend himself against black people, etc, etc...for none of these are in the above listed attitudes that dictate what racism is. What you've posed isn't the converstion I have been having with Oralloy.

Your reply seems to miss what are very obvious points I am discussing with Oralloy to talk about something other than what we've been discussing - which you also did on a previous occasion. This is odd. So let me ask them to you:

If you have a history on a forum of only taking the white persons side (where a black and white person has had a conflict), then:

- if a (black) person makes a vague threat, is it okay to completely ignore all the possible interpretations (legal threat, social media exposure etc) and focus only on the most severe possible conclusion of that vague threat?

- is it okay to completely ignore the context / behaviour of the black person in interpreting this vague "threat"? Ie. is it okay to focus on the offering a treat to a dog while ignoring that the black person has asked you to obey the law, and while speaking is: remaining calm in behaviour, remaining calm in voice, not approaching you, but filming your behaviour (ie. it may be a social media exposure 'threat')?


This of course is only one of Oralloys discussions. You won't find anywhere he has even acknowledged other possibilities, or the contextual behaviour - which context is important to any attempt to accurately interpret (any) vagueries. The smallest admissions from him have had to be dragged kicking and screaming from him. It is not normal for anyone to engage in behaviour like this, outside of extreme bias.

----------------------------------

Amy Cooper didn't deserve to be fired over her behaviour in Central Park. She needed correction, but being fired is disproportionate to the offence. By the same token, Chris Cooper didn't deserve to be shot (as Oralloy says Amy would have been justified in shooting him). Proportionality is essential to fairness and justice.

Shooting him and then slipping away unnoticed was the only way for her to eliminate the threat without being fired.

Exhibit A

Once again, facts are facts.

The interpretation of vagaries is completely irrelevant. She felt threatened by this guy. Full stop.

Once she feels threatened, the only thing that is relevant is eliminating the threat.

My anger is against the rich (mostly white) leftists who live in their iivory towers far away from the common person who are extremely power hungry. They try to force us to deal with all of society's problems while they live exorbitant lives. They include professors, journalists, politicians, social media, businessmen, and even some heads of religion.
They are opportunists who are quite supercilious.

Exhibit B

Concerning the specific events:
I don't have much information on these specific events so I have not engaged in conversation about them.
However, I must ask why disputes between whites and blacks have to have such a major priority over other disputes. People have all kinds of disputes. People kill each other out of anger. It is the nature of people. We are all selfish to some degree.

Let me briefly discuss one event that I do know something about-------Rodney King:

(1) Rodney King acted like a jerk
(2) The police had no right beating him
(3) The prosecutor of the policemen was nuts to have the trial in Simi Valley (perception, right?)
(4) The rioters had no right to riot.
(5) The black man who rescued Mr. Denny is a hero

What are you talking about???? Are you 12 years old???