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

@vikorr,

Vikorr,
MLK represents your way of interacting with people. Then, a segment of the black population got into the "riot" form of interaction. It got them some faster positive results. It also got them long lasting negative results. For example, now a police officer does not know how violent a black man will be when he first interacts with him. So, the police officer acts with caution.
Nobody cares if a black man kills a white man anymore. Ollie sees the hypocrisy in this.
MJ and Ollie will probably never reach a meeting of the mind. It is like a never ending debate. The idea is "if you give an inch they will take a mile". And, with a certain segment of the black community, Ollie is correct.
Mr. Cooper needs another solution so that his enjoyment of bird watching is respected. I imagine that a solution can be reached that would satisfy both parties.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

Quote:

Nobody cares if a black man kills a white man anymore. Ollie sees the hypocrisy in this.

It is fine to identify the hypocrisy in an issue (hypocrisy is a double standard)...it is not fine to in turn be hypocritical back. This always ends in unproductive discussions.

"If you give an inch they will take a mile" is founded in fear. Fear has never been a productive place to work from. Certainly on discussion forums this is the last place yone should give in to fear. If here, then everywhere else tends to be based in fear, and all the negative consequences that come with behaving out of fear.

I don't buy that hypocrisy or double standards 'are acceptable because X is behaving that way'. Doing so demeans the person the person using this as excuse (in their own mind - as it is not supported by any good value, so they can't admire it, and deep down know they are doing the wrong thing) , and debilitates their ability to reason properly (as our minds are very habitual). And that is before you get into how unproductive it almost always is.

You talk about personal morals - people used to know who they were, and what was right and wrong, because they lived (behaved / acted ) by what they thought was right & wrong, with how they did something just as important as why they did something. Again, our minds are habitual - if you keep undermining what you think is right & wrong (by acting contrary to same), you lose sight of who you are as a person, and you lose sight of the fundamental reasons things are wright & wrong (because our minds can and will justify anything to ourselves - including why we keep acting contrary to our beliefs and values). It seems you want this 'moral compass', but considering your arguments excusing double standards in others...I'm not sure you understand how it is achieved?

Contrary to the above - if you identify values/beliefs you admire, and test your values/beliefs (with honesty, on an ongoing basis), and live by those values, regardless of other peoples negative behaviour (which differs from reasoned criticism)...you come to understand who you are, and right and wrong. And yet it still takes time to do this (because again, our minds are habitual).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I wish that the world had more people like you. You are a lot like MLK and other leaders of the past in America. Indeed, you have similarities to Jesus Himself.
It is an honor to talk with you. It is people like you who inspire me to act in a more loving manner.
It does come at a cost, however. People like you have more joyful and peaceful lives. However, sometimes evil has the temporary appearance of victory over good
God bless you Vikorr.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

I don't know about that - I am human, and like all people, will always have flaws. But I see a benefit in always working to be better. And to me, that takes being honest with yourself, even when it is uncomfortable to be so.

0 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

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

He should call the police non-emergency line to have them come and write a ticket for the person who has let their dog off its leash.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I was just checking that you had never previously admitted to any other possible meaning to the vague threat.

As I pointed out, I acknowledged the existence of other interpretations every time I pointed out that those interpretations were irrelevant to the discussion.

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

vikorr wrote:

As I've said several times - any admission that favours the black person has had to be dragged kicking and screaming from you.

I routinely disregard trivia that is not relevant to the subject being discussed.

vikorr wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. Attempting to lure her pet away achieved maximum threat.

vikorr wrote:

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.

In other words, exactly what she did do!

For all your talk about context here, you are leaving out some extremely important context:

This is a world where white people will have their lives destroyed for doing what you just described as the correct course of action.

The reason why applying the three S's is the appropriate route is because that is the only route that white people in America have left to them.

vikorr wrote:

Your posts continue to display bias,

You are lying about me. My posts have never displayed bias.

vikorr wrote:

including your ongoing lack of compassion for the murdered Mr Abery, while wholeheartedly supporting only his killers.

Well duh.

You are trying to unjustly lynch his killers. I am defending them from your unjust lynching.

It stands to reason that the defense that I am presenting is going to focus on the points that are relevant to that defense.

vikorr wrote:

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.

That's another lie. I have shown no such thing.

vikorr wrote:

Only for the white killers.

They are the people who you are trying to unjustly lynch. They are the people who I am defending from your unjust lynching.

It should come as no surprise that the defense that I am presenting focuses on protecting them.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I said:
- you are a hypocrite for asking others to provide linked evidence when you refuse to do so, despite being asked so many.

No such hypocrisy. There is no equivalence between "me asking you to justify your accusations against me" and "me refusing to play your game where you decree that I am guilty and expect me to try to prove myself innocent".

vikorr wrote:

- you can't provide those links, because everything I said was true, and you can't show otherwise.

You are lying about me. Nothing that you have said about me is true.

You are also not going to trick me into playing your "guilty until proven innocent" game with this silly bit of reverse psychology, so you may as well stop trying.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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)

Because the white person is the one who you are unjustly lynching. And the white person is the one who I am defending from your unjust lynching.

vikorr wrote:

- 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.

Because I focus the defense that I am presenting on what is relevant to that defense.

vikorr wrote:

And if a person comes to a different conclusion with sound reasoning? That is fine.

So why do you falsely accuse me of racism whenever I come to a different conclusion than you do?

vikorr wrote:

What isn't fine is when the reasoning involves:
- demonisation / exageration etc to support a weak argument

Like when you falsely accuse me of racism whenever my conclusion differs from yours?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

NealNealNeal wrote:
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

He should call the police non-emergency line to have them come and write a ticket for the person who has let their dog off its leash.

It appears as if this is not working. People are still interfering with his joy of bird watching. That is why he came up with this stupid schene. And look at what happened.

2 Replies

@NealNealNeal,

The greatest evil occurred after the confrontation occurred. They both left the park. I think he set her up.
Then the "lynching" of the white woman began. This was not right.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Because the white person is the one who you are unjustly lynching. And the white person is the one who I am defending from your unjust lynching.

As I said - people exagerate only to prop up weak positions.

Quote:

So why do you falsely accuse me of racism whenever I come to a different conclusion than you do?

You know the answer to this - there is no issue with you disagreeing...it is how you go about disagreeing over multiple conflicts between white & black people that displays your double standards / racism.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No such hypocrisy. There is no equivalence between "me asking you to justify your accusations against me" and "me refusing to play your game where you decree that I am guilty and expect me to try to prove myself innocent".

There have been multiple times where you decree that I am guilty of lying, and have asked me to prove myself innocent, through a link, saying "You are a liar and can't show where I've said such"...and I did link where you said such...showing your accusation to be false, and mine to be true...

I say that you engage in racism - with explicit explanation why, and have asked you to show where you displayed that you aren't (I've asked on many, many occasions).

You are also demonstratably, a hypocrite, for asking others to link evidence disproving your accusations when you won't do such yourself.

Super intelligent people have very good memories....but you keep forgetting your own conversation. Super intelligent people also see the patterns in their own conversation...but you keep not seeing them. etc.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

As I said - people exaggerate only to prop up weak positions.

You cannot provide any examples of exaggeration on my part.

My position is impregnable, which is why you lie about me instead of confronting my position.

vikorr wrote:

You know the answer to this - there is no issue with you disagreeing...

Except there is. You make false accusations against me when I disagree with you.

vikorr wrote:

it is how you go about disagreeing over multiple conflicts between white & black people

The notion that disagreeing with you multiple times justifies your lies is just as absurd, but as it happens you started falsely accusing me of racism after the first disagreement.

vikorr wrote:

that displays your double standards / racism.

You're a liar. You and MJ are the only racists here.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There have been multiple times where you decree that I am guilty of lying, and have asked me to prove myself innocent, through a link, saying "You are a liar and can't show where I've said such"...and I did link where you said such...showing your accusation to be false, and mine to be true...

Don't be so dishonorable. Asking you to back up your accusations against me is not asking you to prove yourself innocent.

vikorr wrote:

I say that you engage in racism - with explicit explanation why, and have asked you to show where you displayed that you aren't (I've asked on many, many occasions).

You're lying. The only racists here are you and MJ.

vikorr wrote:

You are also demonstratably, a hypocrite, for asking others to link evidence disproving your accusations when you won't do such yourself.

You're lying again. I have never done such a thing.

vikorr wrote:

Super intelligent people have very good memories....but you keep forgetting your own conversation.

Another lie. The statement that I didn't recall was not one of any particular significance in our conversation. It was a quick short comment that progressives are factually evil.

vikorr wrote:

Super intelligent people also see the patterns in their own conversation...but you keep not seeing them. etc.

The only patterns that I fail to see are the ones that were never there because you were lying about them having been there.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

It appears as if this is not working. People are still interfering with his joy of bird watching. That is why he came up with this stupid scheme. And look at what happened.

Is there evidence that he had tried calling the police before?

At any rate, I think my point about vikorr is made. If you ever dare to disagree with him, the result will be a massive shower of false accusations of racism or something similarly offensive.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Don't be so dishonorable. Asking you to back up your accusations against me is not asking you to prove yourself innocent.

of course it is. You have accused me of being guilty of lying on multiple occasions...just as I have accused you of being guilty of racism.

You ask for links that show I'm not a liar (Ie. to prove myself innocent of the charge), just as I ask for links that show you are not racist (ie. to prove yourself innocent of the charge).

Both the above, and my previous, show the same structure to both your request, and my request. Understanding English relies on understanding its structure (as much as each words definition). You say you are super intelligent...then display a poor understanding of the structure of english sentences & argument.

In any case, only one of us is providing links. The other, hypocritically, refuses to provide links even while asking for them.

You are going to great lengths to justify why you won't demonstrate what you simply can't demonstrate.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Your lack of honor and integrity is breathtaking. Sad

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Said because I am right about your racism, and because you are unable to demonstrate that I am wrong

Your avoidance doesn't actually fool anyone (maybe yourself, but no one else).

2 Replies

@vikorr,

You are lying about me and I am not required to prove myself innocent of your accusations.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

You do realise that not being racist is very easy, right?

Person of Race & Colour A (A)
Person of Race & Colour B (B)

A & B are in conflict. All not being racist takes is a conversation like:

- so from A's perspective, they thought A / B / C
- and from B's perspective, they thought D / E /F

- A's response, while understandable, wasn't proportionate to B's actions
- B did what he/she did because of G / H / I
- A did what he did because of J / K / L

- The time, place, environment and A's subsequent actions show that <interpretation>
- A could also have considered <other context>
- B in dealing with A could have <action> based on the context

Still, overall I think B was right because of M / N / O, but I can also see how A would have done what A did

Etc.

...ie. it's very easy to show understanding why each does what they do.

But your stance is hardline black and white...with:
- each of the black people you've discussed on this forum virtually always being wrong in everything they did, and
- each of the white people virtually always being right in everything they did.
That is, no balanced conversation comes out of you - only biased conversation, in favour of white people over black people.

And yet still - not being racist is very easy - just show understandng of both sides, and admit valid points on both sides (there are almost never valid points only in one direction)

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know