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

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That is purest bullshit. it does NOT seem likely he was trying to poison her dog.

His threats to her made it reasonable for her to fear that.

MontereyJack wrote:

That is totally evidence less.

Wrong. The thug bragged on Facebook about his threats to her, and then bragged again in a newspaper article (that you provided) about his threats.

MontereyJack wrote:

She was a self-entitled scofflaw.

Women have the right to protect themselves from menacing thugs.

MontereyJack wrote:

she fired herself by her boorish behavior.

Her big mistake was calling the police instead of 3-Sing the guy.

0 Replies

MontereyJack wrote:

She didn't and tried to play the race card on him and got caught on camera.

Wrong. She merely tried to protect herself and her pet when he threatened to harm them.

MontereyJack wrote:

Her fault.

Wrong again. He was responsible for his choice to threaten her.

MontereyJack wrote:

he did nothing wrong or threatening.

Wrong again. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

MontereyJack wrote:

Purely oralloy's overheated imagination.

Wrong again. He bragged on his Facebook page about threatening her and trying to lure her pet away, and then he bragged about it again in a newspaper article (that you provided).

MontereyJack wrote:

she was un the wrong,, not him.

Wrong again. White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to murder them.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

she was wrong. the city agreed with chris, she didn't and tried to sic the cops on him. Her extremely bad.

Wrong. White people have the right to protect themselves when black people try to rape or murder them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

OK. There you go. My position is vindicated.

You do realise I've always held this opinion which you think vindicates you? Even while calling you out on your bias? So no, your position is not vidicated, where you:

- say he was a thug (we disagree - his behaviour was very calm)
- say he threatened her (we agree on this)
- ignore the possible types of threats (legal, social media) - so we disagree on this area to
- you focus on only a physical threat (we disagree on this)
- you take the extreme version of the physical threat (we disagree on this)
- you say she should have shot him (we obviously disagree on this)

Quote:

Are you going to stop spouting false accusations of racism at me now?

Not until you stop displaying the extreme bias that you have so far displayed:

- you don't admit to any other possible threat other than the one that favours the white person (the other two favour the black person)...categorically displaying favourtism towards the white person
- you dismiss the context of his behaviour as this favours the black person (and is necessary for any interpreation of the vague threat)...to favour the white person
- you take your interpretation to the extreme...against the black person...to favour the white person
- you don't criticise the white persons behaviour in any way...and so despite there being much to criticise...you favour the white person
- you do similar things with any discussion on this forum where black and white people have been in conflict...always against the black person, in favour of the white person

The extremely one sided understanding / compassion / empathy is there for all to see, for despite having plenty of opportunity....you display no understanding, compassion, or empathy for the black persons perspective - it has only ever been for the white person (when they have been involved in conflict)

You claim the above list in inaccurate...but have never linked anywhere showing otherwise...with each reply continuing to display your strict bias.

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

The call to shoot Mr Cooper isn't just that of a racist - it is that of white person who looks for any reason to shoot a black person. Same with your defence of the murderers of Amaud Arbery - the dude was out for a jog, got bailed up by gun toting thugs (and these people did threaten his life), got gunned down, and you think he deserved it. You may not be a member of a white supremacist group - but they would whole heartedly applaud your attitude to, and one-eyed defence of these things.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- ignores the possible types of threats (legal, social media)

Why does it matter that those were also possible?

vikorr wrote:

- to focus on only a physical threat (we disagree on this)
- takes the extreme version of the physical threat (we disagree on this)

It was perfectly reasonable for her to fear that interpretation of his threats.

vikorr wrote:

- she should have shot him (we obviously disagree on this)

People have the right to protect themselves when thugs threaten them.

vikorr wrote:

Not until you stop displaying the extreme bias that you have so far displayed:

I am not displaying any bias.

vikorr wrote:

- you don't admit to any other possible threat other than the one that favours the white person (the other two favour the black person)...categorically displaying favourtism towards the white person

Wrong. I admit that there were other possible interpretations.

I don't dwell on those interpretations however, as they are completely irrelevant. There was no way for her to know that the more dangerous interpretation was not the more accurate one.

vikorr wrote:

- you dismiss the context of his behaviour as this favours the black person (and is necessary for any interpreation of the vague threat)...to favour the white person

That's because it is irrelevant. There was no way for her to know that the more dire interpretation was not the accurate interpretation.

vikorr wrote:

- you take your interpretation to the extreme...against the black person...to favour the white person

People have the right to protect themselves when they feel threatened.

vikorr wrote:

- you don't criticise the white persons behaviour in any way...and so despite there being much to criticise...you favour the white person

White people have every right to protect themselves when they feel threatened.

vikorr wrote:

The call to shoot Mr Cooper isn't just that of a racist - it is that of white person who looks for any reason to shoot a black person.

People have the right to protect themselves when they feel threatened.

vikorr wrote:

Same with your defence of the murderers of Amaud Arbery - the dude was out for a jog, got bailed up by gun toting thugs (and these people did threaten his life), got gunned down, and you think he deserved it.

That's an outright lie. I've never said anything even remotely like that.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

did you see the way she was tmisreating the dog? yanking it around, jerkong it off its feet.

"Keeping the dog from running over to the guy who was threatening to harm it" is not mistreatment.

MontereyJack wrote:

Animal cruelty on her part.

Protecting your pets from dangerous thugs is not animal cruelty.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

She didn't and tried to play the race card on him and got caught on camera.

Wrong. She merely tried to protect herself and her pet when he threatened to harm them.

MontereyJack wrote:

Her fault.

Wrong again. He was responsible for his choice to threaten her.

MontereyJack wrote:

he did nothing wrong or threatening.

Wrong again. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

MontereyJack wrote:

Purely oralloy's overheated imagination.

Wrong again. He bragged on his Facebook page about threatening her and trying to lure her pet away, and then he bragged about it again in a newspaper article (that you provided).

MontereyJack wrote:

she was un the wrong,, not him.

Wrong again. White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to murder them.

Repeating all your falsehoods doesn't make them any less false.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. I admit that there were other possible interpretations.

Care to link where?

Quote:

There was no way for her to know that the more dangerous interpretation was not the more accurate one.

If I was standing in front of you, there would also be no way to know that you wouldn't pull a weapon out and kill me...but your words, behaviour, and proximity would give context to whether or not you were a threat.

You know this. It is why you are displaying racism. You know context is everything to interpretation...but you ignore it, because most of the context (the calm behaviour, calm voice, videoing, and not moving towards her) favours the black person...but ignoring such removes favourable interpretation away from the black person....leaving the remaining context that you focus on (the vague threat and the dog treat offer)...which allows you to favour only the white person.

Quote:

That's an outright lie. I've never said anything even remotely like that.

No - you just imply it through your defence that is purely in favour of the McMichaels, and utterly against Arbery...who again, was out jogging when he was hunted down by thugs who threatened his life with drawn firearms...before shooting and killing him.

Oralloy, you display virtually no sympathy, compassion, or understanding for the black victim...instead you focus on, and steadfastly defend the white peoples right to shoot the victim. For anyone that is interested in Oralloys views on Abery's murder - here is a link. It is near the ending of that discussion

Each time you post, you continue to display your bias.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Care to link where?

I said it in the post that you quoted from, in the very line that you quoted.

"I admit that there were other possible interpretations."

I also said it in earlier posts where I dismissed those interpretations as being irrelevant.

Dismissing something as not being relevant is an admission that the irrelevant something actually exists.

However, I do not care to look up links to past posts where I dismissed the relevance of other interpretations.

vikorr wrote:

If I was standing in front of you, there would also be no way to know that you wouldn't pull a weapon out and kill me...but your words, behaviour, and proximity would give context to whether or not you were a threat.

In this hypothetical if I tried to lure your pet away from you (after first stating my intent to do something highly unpleasant) you would be correct to peg me as a maximum threat.

vikorr wrote:

You know this. It is why you are displaying racism.

You are lying. I am not displaying racism. You and MJ are the only ones who are displaying racism.

vikorr wrote:

You know context is everything to interpretation...but you ignore it, because most of the context (the calm behaviour, calm voice, videoing, and not moving towards her) favours the black person...but ignoring such removes favourable interpretation away from the black person....leaving the remaining context that you focus on (the vague threat and the dog treat offer)...which allows you to favour only the white person.

Trying to lure her pet away from her trumps all other context.

vikorr wrote:

No - you just imply it through your defence that is purely in favour of the McMichaels, and utterly against Arbery...who again, was out jogging when he was hunted down by thugs who threatened his life with drawn firearms...before shooting and killing him.

I do not imply anything. If I do not say something outright, then I am not saying it at all.

vikorr wrote:

Oralloy, you display virtually no sympathy, compassion, or understanding for the black victim...

Too bad. You are trying to lynch an innocent person, and the only sympathy that I will exhibit is for that innocent person.

If you think I'm bad here, check out my degree of sympathy for Kercher vermin in a thread about Amanda Knox.

vikorr wrote:

instead you focus on, and steadfastly defend the white peoples right to shoot the victim.

The white people are the victims here.

vikorr wrote:

Each time you post, you continue to display your bias.

No I don't.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

The articles are based on the video and facebook posts by Christian Cooper. Wouldn't it be better for you to go to both of the actual sources, rather than rely on articles that usually place a slant on things (so they can sell / become more popular) ? Of course Christian Cooper would likely have an interest in placing his own slant on things - but it seems straight forward.

I don't think I'd say Christian Cooper was a hothead - he after all did plan to take treats, and did think to video, and did remain calm, and didn't walk towards her, and asked her a number of times not to come near him.
Hotheads don't tend to behave in these ways, and having a group of such behaviours all present makes it very hard to categorise him as a hothead ...though if you mean in another way, let me know. Certainly as I previously mentioned, he could be seen to be thoughtless, or a little vindictive etc

Perhaps "hotheads" is the wrong word to use. Let us use "very vindictive".

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The lesson for me is to try to understand the perspective of the other person. Vikorr is correct about "perspective".
It really was not a black/white problem. It was the lack of consideration of some dog owners for bird watchers. Then, both Coopers did inappropriate things.
Now comes an important question: If dog owners repeatedly violated the leash law, what alternative does a frustrated person have?
Bird watching is his passion. An alternative solution needs to be given to him

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I said it in the post that you quoted from, in the very line that you quoted.

That's good - I was just checking that you had never previously admitted to any other possible meaning to the vague threat. As I've said several times - any admission that favours the black person has had to be dragged kicking and screaming from you.

Quote:

In this hypothetical if I tried to lure your pet away from you (after first stating my intent to do something highly unpleasant) you would be correct to peg me as a maximum threat.

I would not be correct to peg you as a maximum threat. You could be:
- my friend (see how context left out changes things)
- be in a dog park (again, context)
- have a dog with you (and yet again context)
- etc
But Maximum threat would only occur if you pulled a gun / knife / similar. Were you a stranger in Mr Coopers context, I would be correct to drag my dog away from you and call the police...who I would only expect to take your name, as the threat is still sufficiently vague, and his follow on behaviour is non-threatening, calm, etc.

Your posts continue to display bias, including your ongoing lack of compassion for the murdered Mr Abery, while wholeheartedly supporting only his killers. Compassion & empathy are personal things based on your values, connection, desire to understand another, and your actual understanding of other people and their situations - so what others think of the matter is irrelevent to whether or not you feel any compassion / empathy for the victim - which you've shown you don't. Only for the white killers.

NNN - if you wonder why I accuse him of racism, it is because in these matters - and there have been several of them, his perspective virtually admits to no wrong but the black persons wrong, and no right but the white persons right. He does get admissions dragged from him from time to time, which he almost alwayst then calls irrelevant / disregards.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I am under no obligation to prove myself innocent of your untrue accusations.

I didn't say you were - I said:
- you are a hypocrite for asking others to provide linked evidence when you refuse to do so, despite being asked so many.
- you can't provide those links, because everything I said was true, and you can't show otherwise.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The problem is that we live in a very selfish society. Everything is "me, me".
Some blacks insist of being "victims" and placing blame on "white society". Even worse are the mostly white leftists who live in their iivory towers and want to dictate how everyone should act. They would not lift a hand to actually help other people like the poor. Instead, safely tucked away from experiencing even the slightest bit of difficulty, they put the burden of social problems on our shoulders.
Ollie is tired of this and frankly so am I.
As a society, we ,MUST return to personal morality.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I said it in the post that you quoted from, in the very line that you quoted.
That's good - I was just checking that you had never previously admitted to any other possible meaning to the vague threat. As I've said several times - any admission that favours the black person has had to be dragged kicking and screaming from you.

Quote:
In this hypothetical if I tried to lure your pet away from you (after first stating my intent to do something highly unpleasant) you would be correct to peg me as a maximum threat.
I would not be correct to peg you as a maximum threat. You could be:
- my friend (see how context left out changes things)
- be in a dog park (again, context)
- have a dog with you (and yet again context)
- etc
But Maximum threat would only occur if you pulled a gun / knife / similar. Were you a stranger in Mr Coopers context, I would be correct to drag my dog away from you and call the police...who I would only expect to take your name, as the threat is still sufficiently vague, and his follow on behaviour is non-threatening, calm, etc.

Your posts continue to display bias, including your ongoing lack of compassion for the murdered Mr Abery, while wholeheartedly supporting only his killers. Compassion & empathy are personal things based on your values, connection, desire to understand another, and your actual understanding of other people and their situations - so what others think of the matter is irrelevent to whether or not you feel any compassion / empathy for the victim - which you've shown you don't. Only for the white killers.

NNN - if you wonder why I accuse him of racism, it is because in these matters - and there have been several of them, his perspective virtually admits to no wrong but the black persons wrong, and no right but the white persons right. He does get admissions dragged from him from time to time, which he almost alwayst then calls irrelevant / disregards.

Concerning the last paragraph:
You and I engage in a DISCUSSION.
You, MJ, and Ollie engage in a DEBATE where the main purpose is to express your side of the situation.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Yep, the world has become more me, me, me; and more people are seeing themselves as victims. However this occurs as much amongst whites as it does amongst blacks (at least here in Australia).

I'm old enough to have noticed that society has:
- moved away a sense of community rights first (to individual rights)
- moved away from respecting your elders (which actually encourages respect for everyone)
- moved away from solving their own problems (to relying on govt to solve problems)
- moved away from understanding personal responsbility & contributing circumstances (to one of looking for blame)
- moved away from understanding that others are human and therefore fallible (to one of suing for negligence if anything goes wrong)
- etc

In that move away, society has become:
- more self centred (individualism over community)
- more anxious (less problem solving, less conflict mangement ability)
- more victimised (less problem solving ability, minimised view of their own personal responsiblities, less acceptance of others human imperfection)

There is of course, much more to such a discussion.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

You and I engage in a DISCUSSION.

You, MJ, and Ollie engage in a DEBATE where the main purpose is to express your side of the situation.

Are you certain about that?
- is that what I'm doing?
- is that what Oralloy is doing?

If it is what Oralloy is doing:
- why does this go over multiple different events (admitting only to the wrongs of the black person, and only to the rights of the white person)
- why does he never phrase it as "I feel for <the black person>, even while I think that <the white person> was within the law (which to me, would be a quite acceptable argument). This one was in relation to Arbery.

I don't buy 'I'm debating' as excuse to engage in double standards - how we conduct ourselves always displays who we are. Ie. It's not just about putting your side of things across, but the way in which you put it across, and the patterns you exhibit. And again:
- Oralloy admits to no wrong but the black persons wrong, and no right but the white persons right.
-I admit to both sides, because both sides are understandable (even the McMichaels in the most redneck way of thinking), and consider the reasons for both sides actions, befor coming to a conclusion.

Of course being understandable does not necessarily make a thing right, so admitting and considering such should never be an issue - it should be used as basis for your reasoning as to why it was right or wrong (rather than being avoided altogether). But for Oralloy, it is still an issue to make such admissions / considerations.

And if a person comes to a different conclusion with sound reasoning? That is fine. What isn't fine is when the reasoning involves:
- double standards
- avoidance of issues
- demonisation / exageration etc to support a weak argument
- etc

There are a lot of people on this forum who engage in the above three.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

May I remind you of the first Trump/Biden DEBATE? It was not a discussion.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

One moment:
- you didn't answer any of my questions; and
- Person A+B's 'debating' style means that is what debate entails?

I didn't watch any of the debates (I'm Australian). I don't really know Biden's personality. I'm guessing they just talked at each other.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

I'm curious - have you not seen where all of my posts to Oralloy have been directed? Not that he is wrong, but that he is engaging in double standards

...and some avoidance; and a little bit of demonisation (calling Mr Cooper a thug who should have been shot).

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know