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

@NealNealNeal,

You've twice interjected into the conversation to offer opinion / scenarios (this is fine)....

...then I gave a generic scenario, and asked for your opinion of whether you thouight it was right or wrong. You didn't answer.....Your answer talked about not knowing the specifics. But again, I offered a generic question (even if related to specific events) that could be answered by anyone without reading anything else on this forum. So why not answer, and give your opinion on right or wrong?

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

Double standards are part of human nature...we judge our own society (that we identify with) more lightly and others more harshly - as it enhances cohesion within our chosen society, and therefore enhances our ability to survive. Pretty women are similar - the ability to pass on ones genes, and therefore the overall survival of the species. As you are moral, you realise that one life is not worth more than another life (which does mean you have the right to defend yourself, as you aren't worth less than the other), and colour of skin is irrelevant. So you try and overcome genetic drives.

The thing is - anyone who understands this, and wants to think about it, can look inside themselves and identify their own doublestandards....some though.... don't wish to do this at all, and will argue black and blue that they don' - driven by the fact that it is all built into us to think well of ourselves. All of which is why humans are capable of justifying anything to themselves.

As an aside, the drive to think well of yourself is why those who don't are usually volatile in one way or another.

0 Replies

Every time 0llie texts you can't provide, ect, etc, it means he is lying out his azz.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Wrong. When I point out that YOU cannot back up anything you say, that means YOU are the liar.

You are merely compounding your lies by falsely accusing me of your own dishonesty.

0 Replies

I would have to link just about every post I've made arguments to you.

However, I would point out your hypocrisy - asking for links when you refuse to provide them yourself. I've asked for them, what 20 times? And you still refuse to provide links to where:
- you've taken the black persons side over a white persons (when they've been involved in conflict)
- you've acknowledged the black persons perspective
- you've acknowledged other possible interpretations (that favour the black person) when a vaguery has been uttered.

Of course you can't...but you say you're just not complying out of choice...so...stop being a hypocrite - provide links that have been asked for many, many times...before asking others for links

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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.

Perhaps this is what you are talking about when you said I ignored your question:
My answer is no. However, I don't know if Ollie has done this. He denies it and nobody has proven it to me. In fact, Ollie has praised MLK. Therefore point #1 is false.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
A more severe question should be asked to the rioters

What question would you suggest?

What makes you think that you have the right to kill innocent humans (Rodney King riot) and destroy the property of innocent human beings (both Rodney King riot and 2020 riot)?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I would have to link just about every post I've made arguments to you.

That's a dodge. You can't provide any links to support your lies about me.

vikorr wrote:

However, I would point out your hypocrisy - asking for links when you refuse to provide them yourself.

I always provide links to back up my factual claims if someone asks for a cite. You cannot provide any examples of me ever failing to do so.

vikorr wrote:

And you still refuse to provide links to where:
- you've taken the black persons side over a white persons (when they've been involved in conflict)
- you've acknowledged the black persons perspective
- you've acknowledged other possible interpretations (that favour the black person) when a vaguery has been uttered.

There is a considerable difference between "me providing links to back up my factual claims" and "me participating in a game where you proclaim that I'm guilty of racism and invite me to try to prove myself innocent".

I accept an obligation to back up my claims. I have no obligation to prove myself innocent of your untrue accusations.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

You would of course have to go back and see for yourself - the evidence is the absence of him doing certain things (taking a black persons side, acknowledging their perspective etc), and it is not possible to link an absence...although he has been called on that absence many times, and asked to provide links where he actually demonstrates such...

...which of course he can't provide as it doesn't exist / as he never has.

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

But I'm surprised you haven't read it for yourself - it is there to see if you look for the absence - even in this short discussion regarding the Coopers, he has been called on this, and all he would have to say is something like:
- yes the threat was vague
- yes, it could have meant A,B, or C
- yes, his body language and voice were calm, and he asked her not to come near him, and he made no move towards her
...but of course he doesn't admit to any of this (not even that the threat was vague)

You can add that he takes the vague threat to the extreme, disregarding the context in his interpration (and vague statements always require context when attempting to interpret accurately). The reasonableness of Ms Coopers beliefs does not come into his interpretation, and neither do the reasonableness of Mr Coopers display actions. And his interpretation ends up not being reasonable - where he has said she should have shot him and run.

His is very obviously an agenda driven interpretation of events. The question is - what is the agenda? And the sad thing is - that agenda is found in all his posts on this forum where black & white people have had a conflict.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I always provide links to back up my factual claims if someone asks for a cite. You cannot provide any examples of me ever failing to do so.

Of course my original request for you to link was in a different thread on the Coopers. And you refused to provide any links then, despite multiple requests, just like you are doing now.

Here in this thread, only going back to the below before I stopped looking - the below requests shows categorically, that you are a hypocrite who asks for others to provide links while refusing to do so yourself.

And in each of these posts on these forums, you've a history of only supporting the white person, and giving almost no credence to the black person. That is your history on his forum. You've not been able to show anywhere where you do otherwise, despite numerous requests to back up your claims.

You certainly can't point out where you didn't ignore the above each and every time.

As example, in this racism thing - he has been asked to show anywhere where, when a white & black person is in conflict - he:
- acknowledges perspectives of a black person
- doesn't ignore perspectives that support the black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)
- acknowledges context that supports the black person
- doesn't ignore context that supports a black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)
- supports a black person (he never has)

Just like when you were asked to show a single place where you have supported a black person involved in a conflict with a white person (you can't, but you claim you wont). Just like you were asked to show where you have given credence to the perspective of a black person involved in a conflict with a white person (you can't, but you claim you won't).

Paraphrased : complained you still haven’t provided the asked for links

asking for links when you refuse to provide them yourself. I've asked for them, what 20 times? And you still refuse to provide links to where:
- you've taken the black persons side over a white persons (when they've been involved in conflict)
- you've acknowledged the black persons perspective
- you've acknowledged other possible interpretations (that favour the black person) when a vaguery has been uttered.

Of course you won't provide any links, because you can't. The best I have seen is the most grudging of admissions, dragged out from you by another person...then quickly ignored by you. Pretending otherwise is just that - pretending. It fools no-one.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your usual nonsense. There is no self-defense on the cops' part, purely their aggression against unarmed, innocent blacks, doing something innocent or misdemeanor-ish at most, and winding up dead from bad actioions on the cops' part. rell me again how George Floyd was denying derek chauvin's right to self-defense with chauvin's knee on his neck. You're fantasies are racist.

1 Reply

That's delusion right there.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

proof he lives in a fictional world.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I read the account of the two Coopers. Both of them need to grow up. This whole event was silly.
I don't blame her calling the police. However, she did use a form of racism and sexism by saying "black man".
Both were involved in power plays.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Yep, that's a fairly normal interpretation of events. Mr Cooper shouldn't have said 'you won't like the outcome' nor offered her dog a treat after saying that...Ms Cooper shouldn't have said "I'm going to tell them there's an African American man threatening my life (of course she didn't end up saying that to the police), nor engaged in the over the top histrionics that she engaged in. But again, she didn't deserve to lose her job for it - everyone has failings.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Yep, that's a fairly normal interpretation of events. Mr Cooper shouldn't have said 'you won't like the outcome' nor offered her dog a treat after saying that...Ms Cooper shouldn't have said "I'm going to tell them there's an African American man threatening my life (of course she didn't end up saying that to the police), nor engaged in the over the top histrionics that she engaged in. But again, she didn't deserve to lose her job for it - everyone has failings.

My objection is that we live in a society where only Ms. Cooper got "punished". She should not have lost her job. Using sports terms there either should have been "no harm, no foul(basketball)" or "Mr. Cooper gets a double minor in the penalty box and Ms. Cooper gets a major penalty (ice hockey)". This would mean 4 minutes vs. 5 minutes.
Both of them were being selfish.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

As I mentioned - we agree that she shouldn't have lost her job.

I'm not sure I'd use selfish for Mr Coopers behaviour - he did have a right to expect she'd obey the law, and to ask her to obey the law. In how he went about doing things after she refused - perhaps frusrated (he'd had the issue with multiple previous persons), perhaps thoughtless, perhaps a little vindictive, maybe a combination, or maybe something else.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I see.
A lot of Americans don't obey these laws any more. I can see his point. I wonder if he was previously attacked by an unleashed dog.
I wish people would be more considerate of other people.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

It does seem likely he was going to poison the dog however.

3 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

The peception that he may have been going to do so is fair enough - one of the reasons I said Mr Coopers actions were either thoughtless or a little vindictive or a combination of that and other things (for even if he never intended to poison the dog, only having treats - he would have known how she would perceive his actions).

On the other side, perception can be clarified through a simple question - "Are you trying to bait my dog?"

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Why would a bird watcher have dog treats?
Also, do people go there to bird watch?

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know