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

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

(1) Rodney King acted like a jerk

He repeatedly assaulted police officers with great violence.

NealNealNeal wrote:

(2) The police had no right beating him

How should they have curbed his relentless assault against them? Just gunned him down?

Incidentally, the fact that these poor officers were lynched for using less lethal techniques did lead to officers resorting to gunfire against minorities more often.

NealNealNeal wrote:

(3) The prosecutor of the policemen was nuts to have the trial in Simi Valley (perception, right?)

I don't think he had a choice.

But what was wrong with letting those poor officers be tried by a jury of their peers?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

this is one of the most totally immoral things i think i''ve ever seen.naturalloy it comes from oralloy. that's been his stock in trade for decades. If you'fre bothered by someones actions, kill them, is what it boils down to. Doesn't matter if wat they were doing is absolutely inoffensive, just kill them and get away. Why would anyone ever trust oralloy with a gun? why should the country trust him with a gun? He's a walking red flag.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Don't be silly. People have every right to be safe and secure from attack.

If BLM goons don't want people to keep defending themselves against them, then they should stop raping and murdering people.

People don't have to defend themselves from people who aren't attacking them.

And what's this "absolutely inoffensive" nonsense? Rape and murder are not inoffensive. Victims find these sorts of attacks quite offensive.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

Concerning the specific events:
I don't have much information on these specific events so I have not engaged in conversation about them.

Keh?
- You've twice now waded into the conversation...and now, when asked for your position, you back out?
- The questions I asked you weren't specific - they were generic (even if they also had a specific correllation to Oralloys behaviour), and so can be answered by anyone without reading any post history...but you are backing away from answering. Why?

Quote:

However, I must ask why disputes between whites and blacks have to have such a major priority over other disputes.

Do they?
- this is one topic, in one thread, in one discussion category, in a whole discussion forum with likely thousands of threads
- discussing a topic in a discussion forum doesn't by itself give it priority over 'other discussions as a whole'.
- conflict between the two major races in a country is always an interesting topic
- double standards are interesting to discuss
- a person engaging in determined double standards will always attract more attention in terms of discussionn
...so I don't see that it 'has such a major priority over other disputes', but rather, it is what is being discussed.

The thing that interests me about these sort of discussions is the human ability to engage in wilfully blind doublestandards.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

No double standards on my end. I'm pro-fair-treatment all the way.

I do recognize though that progressives bring tons of double standards to the table.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

just keep talking. every time you post one of those fantasy invented viiolent scenarios, you just make your racism clear.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Crime isn't a fantasy, and you are the only racist here. People have every right to be safe and secure from being attacked by these BLM thugs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Where exactly does MJ say people don't have a right to be safe from thugs? I haven't seen it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It's all the times where he refers to self defense as racist and/or murder.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Haven't seen him do that. As far as I can tell, he has referred to the double standards as racist.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

It requires the type of intellectual effort that our poor guy is unable to muster. If he decides you are not sufficiently impressed with his "IQ" he doesn't like you and imagines you are capable of awful things. Even a slight disagreement throws him into a tizzy.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Haven't seen him do that.

He does it nearly every single post.

vikorr wrote:

As far as I can tell, he has referred to the double standards as racist.

No such double standards.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

It requires the type of intellectual effort that our poor guy is unable to muster.

Which one of us has the 170 IQ?

Hint: NOT you.

glitterbag wrote:

If he decides you are not sufficiently impressed with his "IQ" he doesn't like you and imagines you are capable of awful things.

Nonsense.

But if you lie about my IQ I will call you out on your lies.

glitterbag wrote:

Even a slight disagreement throws him into a tizzy.

Nonsense again.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Oralloy, I am not sure why you keep pretending you have an IQ of 170. It is very, very obvious you do not. All the claim does is diminish an already diminished credibility. If you actually believe it (and I'm sure you don't) - then it would be proof of delusions.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Oralloy, I am not sure why you keep pretending you have an IQ of 170.

I'm not pretending.

vikorr wrote:

It is very, very obvious you do not.

No offense, but you are not smart enough to make such an assessment.

vikorr wrote:

All the claim does is diminish an already diminished credibility.

Only among people who lack the intelligence to recognize that it is true.

vikorr wrote:

If you actually believe it (and I'm sure you don't)

Since I know that it is true, I certainly believe it.

You should know by now that I always stick to facts and reality.

vikorr wrote:

then it would be proof of delusions.

No it wouldn't.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Right, delusions it is.

0 Replies

You know it's time for bed when you see the sun rise over Azeroth. 'Night all.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

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

A more severe question should be asked to the rioters

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

A more severe question should be asked to the rioters

What question would you suggest?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Concerning the specific events:
I don't have much information on these specific events so I have not engaged in conversation about them.
Keh?
- You've twice now waded into the conversation...and now, when asked for your position, you back out?
- The questions I asked you weren't specific - they were generic (even if they also had a specific correllation to Oralloys behaviour), and so can be answered by anyone without reading any post history...but you are backing away from answering. Why?

Quote:
However, I must ask why disputes between whites and blacks have to have such a major priority over other disputes.
Do they?
- this is one topic, in one thread, in one discussion category, in a whole discussion forum with likely thousands of threads
- discussing a topic in a discussion forum doesn't by itself give it priority over 'other discussions as a whole'.
- conflict between the two major races in a country is always an interesting topic
- double standards are interesting to discuss
- a person engaging in determined double standards will always attract more attention in terms of discussionn
...so I don't see that it 'has such a major priority over other disputes', but rather, it is what is being discussed.

The thing that interests me about these sort of discussions is the human ability to engage in wilfully blind doublestandards.

I am a bit confused about your point of me backing away from the specific events.
Not having double standards is a goal that we have not yet reached. When it comes to speed violators pretty women get treated better than white men who get treated better than black men
We all prejudge. That is the principle behind sports betting. There is a greater chance of violence in some parts of Los Angeles than other parts. Should police simply ignore this fact?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know