Started By
Message
re: Alabama Board Coronavirus Thread
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:29 pm to TideWarrior
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:29 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
now have lumped me into the conspiracy you have created
Which is different from you suggesting that I should refrain from point out disgusting rhetoric on this board supporting mass murder because Bill Clinton and presidents after him circumvented laws to torture people?
quote:
point fingers and make assumptions.
Isn't that exactly what you did when you engaged me?
Do you not think that it is rational for me to consider you a supporter of that rhetoric after you challenge my condemnation of it?
2
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:40 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
The issue I see is the majority of what has been reported on has not been and turns ugly fast.
True, because coverage of peaceful protests doesn't generate clicks or interest. They're rather boring. I follow a couple of local groups on Facebook and they've been holding protests at least once a week since May. Not a single of them has turned violent, and there has been virtually no news coverage of their protests.
So examples of peaceful protests are out there if you want to look for them. If you wait for the news to report on them though, you'll likely be waiting a while.
More concerning and troubling to me are the instances in some cities where police are provoking and instigating protesters to respond to their provocations so they can be painted as rioters or violent protesters. It happened again this weekend in both NYC and Portland.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:42 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
Your post seems to infer Jesus would support those acts of violence.
No it does not. The point is very clear. Jesus would not support that mass murder of these people, however, a good bit of people here apparently do despite the somewhat regular posts regarding Christianity.
I literally said "even if he did not agree with them". You are being intentionally obtuse in order to defend disgusting bullshite that should not be tolerated here.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:47 pm to Fells
quote:
Which is different from you suggesting that I should refrain from point out disgusting rhetoric on this board supporting mass murder because Bill Clinton and presidents after him circumvented laws to torture people?
My point was you called someone out and argued why they were wrong based on your beliefs. Stated you were on the left and went on to argue against posters who without proof(up voters anonymous) they supported the right with your comments of MAGA and whatnot. Ensuring to make your point against those you believed to be on the right were wrong and that your thinking based in the foundation of the left was correct. So yes if you are using your left ideology to support your argument I find it hypocritical when that same ideology has a proven track record to commit the same disgusting rhetoric you are calling others out on.
quote:
Do you not think that it is rational for me to consider you a supporter of that rhetoric after you challenge my condemnation of it?
No I find it irrational when your condemnation of others is based off of beliefs rooted in the same behavior.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:59 pm to Fells
quote:
No it does not. The point is very clear. Jesus would not support that mass murder of these people, however, a good bit of people here apparently do despite the somewhat regular posts regarding Christianity.
Never said support mass murder but your post implied Jesus would look the other way of these poor people and other assumptions you made of these protesters because of the hardships they have endured during their lifetime. Which would imply Jesus would support their behavior of crime and violence.
quote:
I literally said "even if he did not agree with them". You are being intentionally obtuse in order to defend disgusting bullshite that should not be tolerated here.
Again you are assuming which is not rational. I do not support that type of behavior and have not engaged in it to demonstrate support on this site or anywhere else.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 12:59 pm to TideWarrior
That is such a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I did not once made an argument for my belief system. I did not condemn any one else's (outside of mass murder) it is very clear:
I am not here to argue politics. I did not argue for why I believe the things that I believe. I did not argue for Marxism, I did not argue against any specific political ideology. I did not,in any way, at any point, support anything I said with any sort of political rhetoric.
I explicitly and only condemned disgusting rhetoric about the mass murder of millions of Americans and how members of a community that I am a part of support it.
If being against the mass murder of millions of Americans is based off of my "left ideology", then I guess I chose the correct side.
So me saying
Is essentially the same thing to you as someone calling for mass murder?
quote:
I have always appreciated your contributions to the board. I think of you as a reasonable moderator who keeps the board well maintained. I know that you have a very different worldview than me and your politics reflect that. I have never felt that that wasn't okay. It's not like, "He does a good job but he's a Trump supporter", because it is okay to think different things. There are great people all over the political spectrum, and while I may have moral objections to things you support, that doesn't mean that I think that you have those beliefs because you are piece of shite human who deserves to be dropped into the ocean with a chain attached to your leg.
I am not here to argue politics. I did not argue for why I believe the things that I believe. I did not argue for Marxism, I did not argue against any specific political ideology. I did not,in any way, at any point, support anything I said with any sort of political rhetoric.
I explicitly and only condemned disgusting rhetoric about the mass murder of millions of Americans and how members of a community that I am a part of support it.
If being against the mass murder of millions of Americans is based off of my "left ideology", then I guess I chose the correct side.
quote:
No I find it irrational when your condemnation of others is based off of beliefs rooted in the same behavior.
So me saying
quote:
I believe that human history is defined by the rich and powerful brutally maintaining that power against poor people.
Is essentially the same thing to you as someone calling for mass murder?
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:03 pm to Fells
Just my opinion, but if you get caught looting or rioting, you should spend years in prison and pay restitutions for the damage done.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:09 pm to Fells
quote:
If being against the mass murder of millions of Americans is based off of my "left ideology", than I guess I chose the correct side.
A ideology that has supported the same atrocities you are condemning. Not sure I would call it the correct side but to each his own.
quote:
I did not argue against any specific political ideology. I did not,in any way, at any point, support anything I said with any sort of political rhetoric.
Maybe this was not your quotes.
quote:
My politics, while nuanced, would certainly be considered quite left.
quote:
And for everyone who wants to "Make America Great Again"
That is direct reference to Trump and his supporters or as you say political rhetoric.
quote:
If cops kidnapping Americans from their homes and dumping their bodies in the Arctic is what you people think it takes to make America great
Now change the Arctic to Egypt for torture and let me know does the left think that will make America great.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:13 pm to Fells
quote:
So me saying
quote:
I believe that human history is defined by the rich and powerful brutally maintaining that power against poor people.
I not going to blame people who have more money than me for all the hardships I have faced.
I can also argue thanks to all those rich and powerful people, who by the way refuse to pay their taxes, is why I enjoy the freedoms I do today.
And whether you support the left or the right, the people who get elected for both sides are rich and powerful. So would could assume you imply that are current leaders, no matter which side of the aisle, are do not have our best interest when making decisions.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:30 pm to Fells
quote:
Which is different from you suggesting that I should refrain from point out disgusting rhetoric on this board supporting mass murder because Bill Clinton and presidents after him circumvented laws to torture people?
My post was about exterminating the leadership of any organization(s) whose mission is to promote and incite riots and anarchy. It wasn't about "mass murder" of ignorant sheeple rioters.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:30 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
A ideology that has supported the same atrocities you are condemning. Not sure I would call it the correct side but to each his own.
You are, again, being intentionally obtuse.
quote:
My politics, while nuanced, would certainly be considered quite left.
Expressing my political background is not the same as making an argument for it. The call for mass murder and use of the word "scum" is meant to dehumanize. Me expressing my background is me putting a face on it, or rehumanizing. I want it to be very clear that we are talking about me, a person who has many pleasant conversations with both Tidal and TideSaint over the years. To be as clear as possible, I even defined what I meant by Marxist and how that applies to me, so that there would no room for error in what I was saying. However, you still managed to get it wrong. I am assuming that you are not a dumb person, so you are just intentionally ignoring and/or misrepresenting what I am saying.
quote:
And for everyone who wants to "Make America Great Again"
The people in question very clearly support a political side here that has a slogan that is antithetical to the terrible shite that was said. I didn't say "All MAGA people are disgusting mass murderers in waiting". It is clearly directed at the people who made and supported the shite that I am calling out. Again, I was extremely clear about how I feel about people with different opinions than mine, other than when it comes to calling for mass murder.
quote:
I have always appreciated your contributions to the board. I think of you as a reasonable moderator who keeps the board well maintained. I know that you have a very different worldview than me and your politics reflect that. I have never felt that that wasn't okay. It's not like, "He does a good job but he's a Trump supporter", because it is okay to think different things. There are great people all over the political spectrum, and while I may have moral objections to things you support, that doesn't mean that I think that you have those beliefs because you are piece of shite human who deserves to be dropped into the ocean with a chain attached to your leg.
quote:
Now change the Arctic to Egypt for torture and let me know does the left think that will make America great.
Again whataboutism.
I am specifically calling out shite on this website. No one has said anything regarding any sort of support for Bill Clinton or the precedent he had a hand in creating when it comes to state sponsored torture. The first time you whatabout'd it up, I was very clear that I do not support either him or any policies related to this. It has literally nothing to do with anything and is a hilarious example of a struggling attempt you made to do exactly what you bitched about.
quote:
ationalizing your narrative and now have lumped me into the conspiracy you have created
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:33 pm to TidalSurge1
quote:
My post was about eliminating leaders of organizations who's mission is inciting riots and anarchy. It wasn't about mass murder of all of the ignorant sheeple rioters.
So you aren't cool with brutally murdering all protestors, just the ones that are in leadership "positions".
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:35 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
I not going to blame people who have more money than me for all the hardships I have faced.
I am not going to argue with you about Conflict Theory, because that is not why I am posting.
quote:
And whether you support the left or the right, the people who get elected for both sides are rich and powerful. So would could assume you imply that are current leaders, no matter which side of the aisle, are do not have our best interest when making decisions.
It isn't relevant to anything here, but yes, I believe that to be correct more often than not.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:38 pm to Fells
quote:
So you aren't cool with brutally murdering all protestors, just the ones that are in leadership "positions".
Correct. Don't fight a war in American streets. Eliminate the enemy leaders.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:42 pm to TidalSurge1
So calling for the slaughter of Americans. The protests and affiliated movements are largely decentralized. How many people do you think this ends up with? What's the rough number of how many people you want to kill? How would you determine who gets to be frozen to death and shattered into a million pieces and who gets to watch other Americans they admire be round up?
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:45 pm to Fells
Covert assasination of anti-Americans intent on its destruction. Apparently you struggle with reading comprehension.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:46 pm to TidalSurge1
So an unlimited number?
How do you define that?
quote:
anti-Americans intent on its destruction.
How do you define that?
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:49 pm to Fells
Our government has plenty of intel on them. I don't need to know the details of who is destroyed or the methods.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:55 pm to TidalSurge1
That is avoiding the question. You're calling for the mass murder of Americans and can't give me the perimeters for who falls into that category.
Also, you throwing an insult in the edit is pretty lame.
isn't very clear that you are talking about only those in "leadership" positions.
"Inciting" could mean physically working to organize, or it could just be proclaiming support.
Also, you throwing an insult in the edit is pretty lame.
quote:
Marxist scum have already pledged to riot if the President tries to replace her before the election.
Isn't inciting nation-wide rioting and anarchy a serious treasonous crime? Yes, it certainly is.
So, covertly arrest them and dump them at the north pole from an airplane at very high altitude. They'll crystalize and then shatter. Or ball & chain them and dump them into the open ocean or a volcano full of fiery molten lava. Game over.
I'm serious. And that's all I have to say about it.
isn't very clear that you are talking about only those in "leadership" positions.
"Inciting" could mean physically working to organize, or it could just be proclaiming support.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 1:57 pm to Fells
quote:
So calling for the slaughter of Americans ... How would you determine who gets to be frozen to death and shattered into a million pieces and who gets to watch other Americans they admire be round up?
Holy crap. People are taking things out of context, and others aren't communicating clearly, and y'all are creating a poopstorm of epic proportions over nothing.
Not to put words in anybody's mouth, but here's what I THINK folks are saying:
The term "protesters" is being used by some to indicate anyone who has ever participated in a peaceful march or sit-in, while others are using it as a synonym for "looters" or "anarchists." Since many protests (but not all) have indeed become violent and at least partially exacerbated by antagonists with a specific agenda, the confusion is understandable ... but y'all are gonna spill gallons of e-ink going round and round about this until you get your terms squared away.
Leaders of groups which advocate anarchy, incite revolt or violence against lawful authority, or want to destroy the U.S. system of government are guilty of either sedition or treason, depending on their actions and interpretation of the law. They may be imprisoned or put to death, although the method of execution likely wouldn't involve such draconian implements as airplane drops or volcanoes.
So ...
"Protestor" doesn't automatically mean "rioter / anarchist."
People who advocate anarchy or incite revolt and riot can indeed be put to death under U.S. law.
Page 108 of 125
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News