Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/28/20 at 7:40 pm to Fells
quote:
Whay did I say it was about?
After the fact?
Posted on 9/28/20 at 8:27 pm to Cobrasize
It is not my fault that you intentionally ignored the context of my post entirely.
I made a post challenging a comment made about the state executing protestors. TS responded. I said:
Very clearly talking about the post I was challenging. That is the context for me and Warrior exchange. That is literally was the post that he was responding to. My post. About Surge's original post.
Warrior jumped in with:
I replied with
The two obviously being the rioting, and the original claim that I was challenging and don't need to recite, especially since it has been clarified.
You then said this:
I replied with:
Which was right after this post:
You then told me (dictated what I meant) that it was relevant to something I had said. Even though the context was very clear and already explained.
I then had to spell it our for you and stated, very clearly:
I then said:
You replied with:
Which was you picking up a different topic because you realized you were wrong.
Which is what you continued to do until:
Here is the definition of Capital Punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.
Defending yourself from a rioter or looter is not the authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. It is the legal killing of someone., for the act of defense. It is not punishment for a crime as that would have to be determined by a court.
I do not know how you do not know that, but that is a source of your confusion, and it is 100% on you.
Well ya did, and I gave it to you because I am a nice guy.
You absolutely are.
Why can't you answer this? Because you know that you are wrong and cannot admit it.
Again, look into a therapist. My two psych courses leave me very under-qualified to handle your problems.
I made a post challenging a comment made about the state executing protestors. TS responded. I said:
quote:
People are assholes to each other about politics here all the time, and I have participated in that as much as anyone. Its just that with tensions so high right now and everything becoming increasingly more polarized, places like this are great spaces for people who are different to connect and get outside of their bubbles and that is fricking awesome. It degrading to a point to where posters make ambiguous claims of political violence and every one thinks its cool would be very sad and quite a loss. The behavior is unacceptable, un-American, divisive and potentially very dangerous. Normalizing political violence is not what we should be about and should not be tolerated.
Very clearly talking about the post I was challenging. That is the context for me and Warrior exchange. That is literally was the post that he was responding to. My post. About Surge's original post.
Warrior jumped in with:
quote:
Here is where my concern is. The protest have turned in many areas to political violence by force to push for change. But yet because of our politically correct climate people are willing to tolerate it and the crimes that are being committed. Normalizing political violence should not be tolerated and as an American I find it unacceptable the behavior on these people who feel they have the right to infringe on my rights.
I replied with
quote:
There is a huge difference between the grey area of breaking windows and being disruptive to create political pressure and killing people for breaking said windows. The line is very clearly somewhere between the two.
The two obviously being the rioting, and the original claim that I was challenging and don't need to recite, especially since it has been clarified.
You then said this:
quote:
If rioters or looters start busting my windows out. I’ll kill everyone that I catch doing it. If I get surrounded on an interstate by people hitting my windows and trying to get into my vehicle. I’ll kill them too. I’ll defend myself and my property.
I replied with:
quote:
Great. That is not what any of this is about.
Which was right after this post:
quote:
I never declared or implied support for any of this. The only opinions I have stated are that posts that promote political violence should not be tolerated here and (reluctantly, as I am avoiding arguments over politics) that property damage is not the same as killing people. I think that through that, I may have implied that capital punishment (especially without the courts, as it was presented) is not an appropriate reaction to it.
You then told me (dictated what I meant) that it was relevant to something I had said. Even though the context was very clear and already explained.
I then had to spell it our for you and stated, very clearly:
quote:
Has literally nothing to do with how you should respond to looters or rioters damaging your property. The topic in question is Surge's original ambiguous call for violence. That is "killing people" that is the subject there.
The capital punishment we are talking about is not about an individual defending his property, it is about Surge's call for "Marxist Scum" to be kidnapped and executed by the state.
Everything I said has been extremely clear, I am not sure how you are getting it wrong.
I then said:
quote:
You were wrong by claiming that I said anything about defending your property at any point.
You replied with:
quote:
Surely you aren’t dumb enough to believe there are millions of rioters and looters, or did Millions just make your argument sound better.
Which was you picking up a different topic because you realized you were wrong.
Which is what you continued to do until:
quote:
No because you said rioters and looters shouldn’t face capital punishment and I gave you an example of some that would get capital punishment. You made a blanket statement and you shouldn’t have.
Here is the definition of Capital Punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.
Defending yourself from a rioter or looter is not the authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. It is the legal killing of someone., for the act of defense. It is not punishment for a crime as that would have to be determined by a court.
I do not know how you do not know that, but that is a source of your confusion, and it is 100% on you.
quote:
I don’t need your help.
Well ya did, and I gave it to you because I am a nice guy.
quote:
I’m not dictating shite, I just copied and pasted your exact remarks and what you were responding to. I copied the exact quote that you were responding to. Quit trying to deflect.
You absolutely are.
quote:
And what did I, the person who made the comment, say it was about?
Why can't you answer this? Because you know that you are wrong and cannot admit it.
Again, look into a therapist. My two psych courses leave me very under-qualified to handle your problems.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 8:29 pm to Fells
I’m not wrong I responded to your post. After the fact you say that you meant it differently and that I’m wrong. That’s bullshite
Posted on 9/28/20 at 8:31 pm to Fells
quote:
Here is the definition of Capital Punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Defending yourself from a rioter or looter is not the authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. It is the legal killing of someone., for the act of defense. It is not punishment for a crime as that would have to be determined by a court. I do not know how you do not know that, but that is a source of your confusion, and it is 100% on you.
I also said that I would kill someone for destroying my property. If I went outside and someone was destroying my vehicle, I’d blow their head off
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:11 pm to Fells
quote:
it only takes a small bunch of crazies to make a lot of terrible posts online.
It only takes a small bunch of crazies to turn a peaceful protest into criminal acts for no reason at all.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:46 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Political violence has been happening in this country since it was founded. It was normalized a long time ago. It doesn't mean it's acceptable or always justified, but to act like it's something new is a bit ignorant of our history.
Political violence is not normalized, inferring it is expected.
I responded to Fells post talking about it being unacceptable and I responded because to many seem to be alright tolerating it. Our current climate on the left seems to tolerate more so than the right and for some even encourage it. The leaders on the left are using it for political gain. The moderates or those in the middle are afraid to address out of fear of being called a racist(the current protest).
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:33 pm to TideWarrior
Posted on 9/29/20 at 8:21 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Political violence is not normalized, inferring it is expected.
Well, I guess it depends on how you want to define "normalized." It's a pretty regular occurrence in our history, and has been since our founding. It can't be predicted when it will happen, but it's a very safe bet that it will continue to happen into the future.
quote:
Our current climate on the left seems to tolerate more so than the right
This highlights the differences in the core ideologies of both sides. I am going to speak in fairly broad terms here, but generally speaking the right wishes to maintain and protect the status quo. That's not to say they're against progress, but rather they want to temper progress to the point where it doesn't disrupt the status quo too much. The left generally wants change, and they want it now. In a functioning government, the two sides meet in the middle. But when that change comes too slow, frustration mounts. When peaceful demonstrations don't work, frustration mounts, and eventually those peaceful demonstrations are just ignored. It's happening right now. There are peaceful BLM protests happening nearly every day across the country and they're getting little to no publicity. And these are issues many blacks in this country have been sounding the alarm on for decades now, so it's not a new movement. None of that is to say the violence and property destruction are right or warranted, but rather to say I can appreciate that frustration. And I also understand that a lot of the violence and property destruction are being carried out by opportunistic whites looking to hijack the movement for their own selfish goals.
Many on the right want to almost always bring up Martin Luther King and his peaceful protests in this argument, ignoring that he actually supported rioting, and that he was very unpopular with the general public in the 1960's. His peaceful protest movement was a strategy because he knew the violence he and his followers would be met with, and gambled that when those images played out on the nightly news, it would turn the tide in his favor. His gamble won.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 8:58 am to The Spleen
Since we are speaking with opinion I will respond.
The right since the beginning of our country has wanted to protect individual liberties. Wants a hands off approach from the government. Which has not been the status quo that now has become what can our government do for us and give us. The right has always wanted change that promotes freedom of choice without some elected politician making that choice for us.
The left, especially today, is seeking more micromanaging from the government. They want more handouts and a government that controls while taking away our individual freedoms. They want it in forms of free healthcare, education, and wealth distribution. So instead of working for these things or actually trying to change the root issues of these problems they have become sheep of a political machine that has convinced them they deserve all of this free at the expense of others.
Our founding fathers never intended this country to become a socialist state it is heading towards. The Constitution was not designed to give the government that power but yet so many on the left want to change that.
In the end everyone wants progress but how that is achieved usually is the difference in ideology.
quote:
. I am going to speak in fairly broad terms here, but generally speaking the right wishes to maintain and protect the status quo.
The right since the beginning of our country has wanted to protect individual liberties. Wants a hands off approach from the government. Which has not been the status quo that now has become what can our government do for us and give us. The right has always wanted change that promotes freedom of choice without some elected politician making that choice for us.
The left, especially today, is seeking more micromanaging from the government. They want more handouts and a government that controls while taking away our individual freedoms. They want it in forms of free healthcare, education, and wealth distribution. So instead of working for these things or actually trying to change the root issues of these problems they have become sheep of a political machine that has convinced them they deserve all of this free at the expense of others.
Our founding fathers never intended this country to become a socialist state it is heading towards. The Constitution was not designed to give the government that power but yet so many on the left want to change that.
In the end everyone wants progress but how that is achieved usually is the difference in ideology.
This post was edited on 9/29/20 at 9:00 am
Posted on 9/29/20 at 9:02 am to The Spleen
What point are you trying to make? Are you in favor of infringing on other people's civil rights via criminal rioting, property destruction, looting, etc. in attempting to achieve whatever change(s) the left wants? I could be wrong, but it appears to me that you believe such means are justifiable.
This post was edited on 9/29/20 at 9:49 am
Posted on 9/29/20 at 9:56 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Our founding fathers never intended this country to become a socialist state it is heading towards
There are a lot of things present today they didn't intend to have happen. Women owning property, women voting, black owning property, blacks voting, etc. The founding fathers weren't infallible, nor is the Constitution. It's why there are 27 amendments to it.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 10:00 am to TidalSurge1
quote:
Are you in favor of infringing on other people's civil rights via criminal rioting, property destruction, looting, etc. in attempting to achieve whatever change(s) the left wants? I could be wrong, but it appears to me that you believe such means are justifiable.
You must have difficulty with reading comprehension then, because this sentence is in the post you responded to.
quote:
None of that is to say the violence and property destruction are right or warranted, but rather to say I can appreciate that frustration.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 10:08 am to The Spleen
My reading comprehension is excellent, and you have posted a plethora of sentences. Tbh, I did not need, nor did I expect, you to provide candid answers to my questions.This post was edited on 9/29/20 at 11:22 am
Posted on 9/29/20 at 10:29 am to The Spleen
quote:
Thomas Sowell
@ThomasSowell
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
quote:
Thomas Sowell
@ThomasSowell
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 10:39 am to The Spleen
quote:
There are a lot of things present today they didn't intend to have happen. Women owning property, women voting, black owning property, blacks voting, etc.
Now you are making assumptions. The question regarding slavery was an issue and some of our founding fathers including Jefferson wanted to eliminate it, even called it an “abominable crime”, but due to the birth of a fragile nation in the beginning refrained from it because the nation at the time needed unity not more division. Not excusing it but understand during that time issues at hand. Hence why he abolished slave trading in this country with the the hope of full emancipation. Other founding fathers felt the same way. If not for the rule of the democratic party in the south I believe like many historians that slavery would have been abolished prior to a civil war breaking out. In case you were unfamiliar with history during this time Jefferson Davis was the democrat running for president against Lincoln and the man who became president of the confederacy. Another interesting note it was democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1978 who officially pardoned Jefferson Davis for his crimes of treason and once again becoming a citizen of the US.
The Constitution was written to create a new country to limit the control of a government. It granted the government, that was to represent the people, powers to ensure our personal liberties and freedoms. Over time it has been deemed when society was ready to fully accept it that more should share in those same freedoms. The issues that you pointed out have been addressed. Every legal citizen in this country no matter their biological makeup or color of their skin has the right to own property and vote.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 11:00 am to TideWarrior
Not sure what slavery has to do with my point since I never mentioned it.
Sure, and the only people that could participate in that government were white male property owners.
quote:
The Constitution was written to create a new country to limit the control of a government. It granted the government, that was to represent the people, powers to ensure our personal liberties and freedoms.
Sure, and the only people that could participate in that government were white male property owners.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 11:32 am to The Spleen
quote:
...my point...I never mentioned it.
This post was edited on 9/29/20 at 11:46 am
Posted on 9/29/20 at 11:53 am to The Spleen
quote:
Not sure what slavery has to do with my point since I never mentioned it.
Since you are not familiar with our history in this country let me explain. Post civil war we saw the creation of the 13th-15th amendments or reconstruction amendments. Those amendments affected and gave rights those you mentioned in your post.
You have a tendency to make blanket statements without context. I provided some context but I understand why you do it as it does not fit your narrative.
Posted on 9/29/20 at 11:55 am to The Spleen
quote:
Sure, and the only people that could participate in that government were white male property owners.
Prior to the Constitution that was also the case and practice. The Constitution did not create that nor did our founding fathers as your post seems to allude to.
What it did do and you fail to understand it is created a foundation so that in the future of our country that people who were elected by the people, not in charge based on bloodline, could ensure freedoms were not infringed on. It may have taken time but without the Constitution people of color or women would not have the rights they do today. Or the ability to protest in the streets as they are currently doing.
Page 114 of 125
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News