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

@vikorr,

This is not a conversation that requires reasoning.

@oralloy,

Of course it is:

I claim your misuse is wrong (of the word Thug)
- present the evidence from multiple dictionaries
- point out they clearly don't match your misuse
- as there was no physical violence, and no criminal engagement

It is very clear you are misusing the word, and for your own ends.

You claim your usage is correct
- presenting no evidence (even though you claim you always do)
- and no reasoning

But as I said, I expected you to avoid providing any reasoning. You tend to avoid anything that you can't deal with. The blather that follows is usually just that - meaningless blather meant to distract from your avoidance of reasoning.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Actually a number of your definitions did match my usage. If I cared, I'd point them out. The thing is, your pathetic phony outrage is not an issue of enough significance to make me care. I find your arguing over word usage boring and pointless.

What I find most interesting about your latest nonsense is that even if I was misusing the term (and I am not), that misuse would pale compared to the outright lie denying that this thug threatened and menaced Amy Cooper.

You want to have a tantrum of phony outrage over my proper use of the term thug? Go right ahead. My response to your phony tantrum is to point out what a horrible racist you are for not addressing the fact that the thug did in fact threaten and menace Amy Cooper.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I don't disagree that he threatened / menaced her, as you know. However, I do think you exagerate to the extreme, the level of threat / menace. It was mild. And the context makes it very clear how mild it was.

And as I pointed out - you ignore the gist of a word, to focus on minutae that justifies your nonsense...missing the overall picture. There are much more accurate words you could use...but here's the thing - your misuse enables you to manipulate, exagerate and demonise...and you think that will justify your nonsense. But that is all it is - nonsense.

Thug should be used with physical violence. The dictionaries are very clear on that. Below that threshold - the motive for using it is exageration to support a weak argument. Common enough (hence why people understand its use)...but that is what it is - exageration to support a weak argument. Unintelligent people who want to manipulate conversations use this tactic. It's why intelligent people object to such use.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

By the way - the more intelligent a person is, the more important the meaning of words become to them...because the more intelligent they are, the more important understanding & efficiency become to them (ie. the more important definitions become because they facilitate quicker & clearer understanding). In virtually all cases, if a word is in debate - they use other words to ensure clarity, understanding, and efficiency of communication. And yet, they also tend to be wordy because clarity is just as important to them, and if a word is inaccurate for the situation - they will use numerous other words in its place, until they are satisfied that it is accurate. To them, they want to convey a message that is understood by others (because clarity is important to them), and if not...they tend to explain at length why it's accurate, or (much more often) use other words.

But you don't know appear to know this.

It is just one of the many reasons people can tell you lie when claiming to have an IQ of 170.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

from the NYPost coverage

Quote:

Christian Cooper recounts incident with Amy Cooper before Central Park video
By Kate SheehyMay 26, 2020 | 4:46pm | Updated
Enlarge Image
Christian Cooper, left, and Amy Cooper
Christian Cooper (left) and Amy CooperFacebook
MORE ON:
AMY COOPER
It's not over yet: 'Central Park Karen' set to tell her 'story' after charges dropped
Charges against 'Central Park Karen' dismissed following therapy sessions
Details of unheard 911 call emerge in Central Park 'Karen' case
Central Park bird watcher getting ‘graphic’ about racist encounter
The black man accosted by a white dog-walker in Central Park has posted an online rundown of what happened right before videotaping the now-infamous confrontation.

Christian Cooper — a Harvard University grad, former Marvel Comics editor and a current member of the board of directors for the New York City chapter of the Audubon Society, according to reports and the nature organization — wrote on Facebook on Monday:

“Central Park this morning: This woman’s dog is tearing through the plantings in the Ramble.

“ME: Ma’am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on the leash at all times. The sign is right there.

“HER: The dog runs are closed. He needs his exercise.

“ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.

“HER: It’s too dangerous.

“ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.

“HER: What’s that?

“ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

“HER: He won’t come to you.

SEE ALSO

Things just went from bad to worse for Central Park 'Karen'
“ME: We’ll see about that…” before adding, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.

“HER: DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!!

“That’s when I started video recording with my iPhone, and when her inner Karen fully emerged and took a dark turn..

-then posted vid”

“Karen” refers to the social-media term for white women who call the cops on black people over harmless incidents.

Christian later explained that he pulls the dog-treat ploy on owner scofflaws hoping they’ll leash their pooches to restrain them from taking the goodies, thus getting them to comply with the rule. The Central Park dog-walker, investment banker Amy Cooper, has said she freaked out partly because she was afraid what was in the treats.

Amy was caught on the footage threatening to call the cops on Christian, to which he replied, “Please call the cops.”

Amy screamed back, “I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life!” — a claim that has drawn widespread outrage for what critics, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, call its blatant racist undertone.

Christian responded, “Please tell them anything you like.”

Amy proceeded to call 911 and report that an “African American man” was “threatening me and my dog.”

She has since insisted she’s no racist, although it didn’t stop her employer, Franklin Templeton, from giving the University of Chicago business-school grad the boot Tuesday.

After cops arrived for a report of an “assault” at the park, they ended up leaving without filing any charges against anyone, police said.

Christian said in an interview set to air Tuesday that he had “the choice of either capitulating to this racist spin she was going to try to use to alter my behavior, or I could continue doing what I was doing, which was recording her scofflaw behavior on my iPhone.

SEE ALSO

De Blasio says Central Park 'Karen' showed 'racism, plain and simple'
“So I decided I wasn’t going to be racially intimidated and just keep recording on my iPhone,” he told Newsy app, according to producer Matt Simon on Twitter.

Christian studied government at Harvard between 1980 and 1984, when he received a bachelor’s degree, according to a LinkedIn page attributed to him by such outlets as Heavy.com.

He also worked for nine years as a writer and editor at Marvel Comics, where he developed the first gay character for the “Star Trek” comics, said the LGBT magazine The Advocate.

Christian is currently a biomedical editor, according to LinkedIn.

He also is a board director for the local Audubon Society. The national organization put out a statement Tuesday saying, “We unequivocally condemn racist sentiments, behavior, and systems that undermine the humanity, rights, and freedom of Black people.

RELATED VIDEO
Video length 54 seconds:54Amy Cooper, Central Park dog-walker at center of race storm, is fired

Amy Cooper, Central Park dog-walker at center of race storm, is fired
“We are grateful Christian Cooper is safe.

“He takes great delight in sharing New York City’s birds with others and serves as a board member of the New York City Audubon Society, where he promotes conservation of New York City’s outdoor spaces and inclusion of all people.”

FILED UNDER AMY COOPER , BIRD WATCHING , CENTRAL

1 Reply

@oralloy,

chris cookper was no thug. Harvard grad, mboard member of NY Audubon Society, ex Marvel Comics writer. He was a quintessential nerd, who only wanted an illegally unleashed dog terrorizing thne birds st a bird watching site put on a leash. Amy was the quintessential narcisist who felt entitled to do whatever she wanted despite the law.
Chris did not threatednb her in any way. You are projecting your racism on the situation, as she did. that's why yo are clearly racist.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Had this conversation at length before with oralloy. He can't see her doing anything wrong. He will focus on minutae of words, disregarding any behaviour and/or context (he calls it irrelevant, like context can be irrelevant to a possibility of a vague 'threat'). He won't back down - he in facts thinks that Ms Cooper should have shot Mr Cooper, buried him, and run. I would think this a joke, except he was challenged and repeated it several times.

But he's also done similar on each of the threads on this forum where black people and white people have had conflicts. Black person wrong. White person right. Black person receives no understanding or empathy. White person receives understanding and empathy. No perspective is focused on except how the white person would have felt aggrieved (in oralloys mind). No perspective from the black persons part is admitted to (or very, very grudingly if so)

He claims this isn't so...but refuses to (read can't) provide any link where this isn't the case.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I don't disagree that he threatened / menaced her, as you know. However, I do think you exahgerate to the extreme, the level of threat / menace. It was mild. And the context makes it very clear how mild it was.

I exaggerate nothing. She felt threatened and had the right to protect herself.

vikorr wrote:

And as I pointed out - you ignore the gist of a word, to focus on minutae that justifies your nonsense...missing the overall picture. There are much more accurate words you could use...but here's the thing - your misuse enables you to manipulate, exagerate and demonise...and you think that will justify your nonsense. But that is all it is - nonsense.

You think my support of justice is nonsense because you are a racist.

Non-racists don't oppose justice.

vikorr wrote:

Thug should be used with physical violence. The dictionaries are very clear on that. Below that threshold - the motive for using it is exageration to support a weak argument. Common enough (hence why people understand its use)...but that is what it is - exageration to support a weak argument. Unintelligent people who want to manipulate conversations use this tactic. It's why intelligent people object to such use.

You shouldn't falsely accuse your betters of your own lack of intelligence.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

By the way - the more intelligent a person is, the more important the meaning of words become to them...because the more intelligent they are, the more important understanding & efficiency become to them (ie. the more important definitions become because they facilitate quicker & clearer understanding). In virtually all cases, if a word is in debate - they use other words to ensure clarity, understanding, and efficiency of communication. And yet, they also tend to be wordy because clarity is just as important to them, and if a word is inaccurate for the situation - they will use numerous other words in its place, until they are satisfied that it is accurate. To them, they want to convey a message that is understood by others (because clarity is important to them), and if not...they tend to explain at length why it's accurate, or (much more often) use other words.
But you don't know appear to know this.

Your silly nitpicking over definitions is not a sign of intelligence. You are not particularly intelligent. Neither do you speak for anyone who is intelligent.

vikorr wrote:

It is just one of the many reasons people can tell you lie when claiming to have an IQ of 170.

The only liar here is you.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

"ME: Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.

MontereyJack wrote:

"ME: We'll see about that…" before adding, "I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence.

So in other words, everything that I said is correct. The thug threatened her and tried to lure her dog away, and then he boasted about it on his Facebook page.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

chris cookper was no thug.

His threats and menacing of Amy Cooper show otherwise.

MontereyJack wrote:

Chris did not threaten her in any way.

Yes he did.

MontereyJack wrote:

You are projecting your racism on the situation, as she did. that's why yo are clearly racist.

Progressives look even goofier than normal when they falsely accuse everyone of racism.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Had this conversation at length before with oralloy. He can't see her doing anything wrong.

That's a lie, although it's not really relevant to the discussion.

vikorr wrote:

He will focus on minutae of words,

Another lie, and a rather hypocritical one.

You are the only person here who is throwing a fit over the supposed definitions of words.

vikorr wrote:

disregarding any behaviour and/or context (he calls it irrelevant, like context can be irrelevant to a possibility of a vague 'threat').

I call it irrelevant because it is irrelevant.

All that matters is that she felt threatened and had the right to protect herself.

vikorr wrote:

He won't back down

Because I am right. And more importantly, because I am defending an innocent person from a lynching.

vikorr wrote:

he in facts thinks that Ms Cooper should have shot Mr Cooper, buried him, and run. I would think this a joke, except he was challenged and repeated it several times.

Now don't be silly. I never said that she should have taken the time to bury him.

vikorr wrote:

But he's also done similar on each of the threads on this forum where black people and white people have had conflicts. Black person wrong. White person right. Black person receives no understanding or empathy. White person receives understanding and empathy. No perspective is focused on except how the white person would have felt aggrieved (in oralloys mind). No perspective from the black persons part is admitted to (or very, very grudingly if so)

That's a lie.

vikorr wrote:

He claims this isn't so...but refuses to (read can't) provide any link where this isn't the case.

No. Read refuses to. I'd bloody the nose of anyone who called me a racist to my face. And I'm not a sniveling coward like snood.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Different dicitionaries definitions of thug

thug thŭg►
n. A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.
n. One of a group of professional criminals, devotees of Kali, who robbed and murdered travelers in northern India until the mid-1800s.
n. A member of a confraternity of professional assassins and robbers formerly infesting India, chiefly in the central and northern provinces.

see usage paragraph below : a violent or brutish criminal or bully
a brutal thug
a gang of thugs

… in American History X, Norton … plays a vicious young Venice Beach thug, a racist skinhead with … a thick black swastika tattooed over one bulging pec, and a gleam of murder in his eye.
— Owen Gleiberman
An authoritarian government willing to use the most brutal means to hold on to power; a dictator whose thugs have murdered, tortured, imprioned or intimidated tens of thousands of civilians …

a violent, lawless, or vicious person, especially one who commits a crime such as assault, robbery, or murder:
(sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.
— Michiko Kakutani

a violent person, especially a criminal

an unpleasant person who behaves violently
----------------------------------------------------------------

Physical violence is common to all definitions of thug, and criminal activity to most understandings

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

Misusing words to make matters seem worse than they are does not show intelligence, nor an ability to reason.

It does show a persons character though - how often they engage in manipulative use of langage / manipulative behaviour, and the inferred why.

With that said, let me point out that the insurrection committed on 1/6/2021 was pure thuggery!

0 Replies

You just want to blame guns? A gun is only a threat when an armed baddie tries to hurt people. They can also do bad deeds by using other tools, namely swords, knives, sticks, pots, and even ropes. Don't forget that they could also kill you with their hands.

So are you suggesting that America should lock up anyone using hands, not just guns?

1 Reply

@goldberg,

Do you seriously think we don't want them locked up too? the fact is, though, guns are used year after year to kill 12,000 or so people. that's a million [people killed with guns in the course of an average lifetime. I don't think ropes come anywhere near that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are the only person here who is throwing a fit over the supposed definitions of words.

The minutae of the words within their context dude - this shouldn't need to be spelled out for you. Ie.:
- If 20 definitions saying the same thing, you will choose half a sentence that is vague, focus on it, and say 'see I was right'....while ignoring the whole which shows otherwise (to your opinions)
- You do exactly the same for the Coopers incident...focus on just two parts of the whole (which by themselves are vague), then ignore the rest (the context) to arrive at your conclusion...ie. you focus on the minutae.

Quote:

I'd bloody the nose of anyone who called me a racist to my face.

Hardly make it any less true, now would it.

As for the rest - you continue to illustrate that which I said....you just don't appear to comprehend it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Bullshit. He had told here where she could go with her dog and not violate the law as she was doing there. ?S?he refused,So clearly she wold not like it if she had to follow the law All he was trying tok do was get her to follow the law. No threat there. As he says, wh from some perverse sense of entitlement to continue to violate n he offered the dog a treat, the owners leased their dogs rather than have him give the dog a treat. In other words, it was simly an attemp;th that woeked to get them to obey the law. the law. Amy refuses, and the law blew up in her face, deservedly. and you of course fantasize a racist scenario. As you always do.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Oralloy is saying that most people, if a stranger in a park, with only you two by yourself <fill in Coopers incident details> told them they would like the outcome if they didn't <leash the dog>, then offering the dog <something>, the owner of the dog would pull their dog away to ensure it wasn't a bait.

I agree with this, as I would do the same. However, that is at the point up to the offering of the dog treat. After that, as the threat was vague (with many possible meanings) I would also look at the context:
- how the other party is talking in total
- their body language in total
To determine what was actually meant. And if I couldn't work it out, I'd ask the question. I use in total, because oralloy ignores large swathes of same to arrive at his conclusions. Mr Coopers words & behaviours in total, weren't consistent with him intending the vague words he said, to mean an actual physical threat. But Oralloy ignores this.

Mind you he does the same for all his other posts where white people are in conflict with black people. He will only focus on anything that favours the white people...

He claims otherwise, but refuses to show <read can't show>anywhere on this forum where he has focused on things that favour the black person <when they are in conflict with a white person> - and he has posted in a lot of such threads. He then says he would punch anyone in the nose that called him racist IRL. This behaviour wouldn't of course, change the overt racist slant of his posts.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Do you seriously think we don't want them locked up too? the fact is, though, guns are used year after year to kill 12,000 or so people. that's a million people killed with guns in the course of an average lifetime. I don't think ropes come anywhere near that.

Don't be silly. All those people would be just as dead if they were killed with ropes.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know