R_1 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Arodash said: He was in the crowd with rioters and was told to disperse. They where told they are on federal property, federal agents have a duty to protect federal propperty, they didnt leave so they got tear gassed. The entire vid is them explaining what happened and going on a tour.... CNN doesnt have it correct, they are pending trials. They still have their charges. 1. Answer the question instead of trying to justify an action. 2. From the POV of the video maker. I prefer individual names, corrobating evidence, veracity, and contents. 3. Right... Charges only apply if they are found guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
Kasseb Posted July 25, 2020 Author Share Posted July 25, 2020 On 7/24/2020 at 11:02 AM, fragglerock said: I'm not sure how to respond to this. Do you really want me to walk you through it? I feel it would be insulting to any other readers. But perhaps I can make this sufficiently clear: you quoted Elise and said "That's not true and you know it." What is lying? Saying things you know to be untrue. Incidentally, I expect you are knowledgeable enough to know what lying is and what strawmen are. We share, perhaps, an opposition to baseless emotional claims. Hitchens' Razor is an excellent principle, I'll quote it here for the convenience of others: "the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it." I encourage everyone to consider whether it's worth their time to argue with those who make baseless emotional claims. Also not sure how to respond to this, but I have to say you've provided me with a change of pace It's been a long time since I've seen someone say something like that. Did you honestly miss that I was arguing against baseless emotional claims? I know what lying is, I never claimed anyone lied or that I myself lied. Again, a strawman. What makes a lie is the intent. They know that's not as objective, but they may still believe it to be true. Consider what is a delusion. You can have half-delusions. You can still endorse a view, does not mean you're spouting it because you wish to tell a false truth. Lying is telling a false truth with the intent and knowledge it's false. A strawman is assuming my argument or position X when it's not. Who is making baseless emotional claims? I'm sure not.As for the rest, thanks for proving my point. The claim made was emotional charged, not logically based, and has no evidence nor was supported with evidence. So, it can be dismissed as simple as I did. If you take issue with what my retort was, look to the OP message I replied to and see you should be going after both, not just one of us. Did you miss that I was dismissing a baseless, emotional claim? Link to post Share on other sites
Kasseb Posted July 25, 2020 Author Share Posted July 25, 2020 On 7/24/2020 at 10:39 AM, Elise Jennings said: Sure...And that's why women haven't always been able to vote. Or even fully have the rights to their own bodies, but yeah, sure. You can say men aren't put higher up than women, but I won't believe it. Women have equally as much rights as men do in the United States now. If you disagree, please explain how they're not. As for their body, it has nothing to do with controlling someone's body as much as the right finds it adherent people would kill a "potentially sentient life-form". Link to post Share on other sites
Kasseb Posted July 25, 2020 Author Share Posted July 25, 2020 6 hours ago, R_1 said: Of the two, only one can be looked at. FOX has a known far right slant, and should never be taken seriously. National Review is more reliable, but has slants to the right. Given the nature of their bias, it is imperative check on details. On the national review, it is said that thousands of people burned the federal courthouse. There is inconsistency within the number of arrests and the numbers of those that attempted to burn the federal courthouse. Other far right news reported that there was 52 days of burning the courthouse(it only needs one day). So, given those findings, there's no reason to support claims that has been provided by right leaning website. Most news medias have a slant, sadly. As for Fox, their written articles are not nearly as biased as their TV shows. 5 hours ago, R_1 said: 1. Provide the evidence. The evidence we have supports escalation by the federal officers. There is zero convincing reports of protests-linked riots before they shown up. 2. Defecting from addressing the point. Do you think it's fine for officers to gas a mayor? 3. Videos aren't evidence without content. So far, you could argue that escalation ftom the officer encouraged the behavior or some cops were involved. 4. Read the last line. 1) The protestors generally start the shit. Feds put up a fence to keep them out, the illegally protesting (without a permit and taking control of a public park as their personal "safe-space" took it down. They actively call for the death of officers. As a journalist that has covered these protests since Trump was elected, 99% pf the time when they claim PPB attacked first, it's false. The police also give ample amounts of warnings. 2) They didn't gas the mayor because he's the mayor, they gassed the mayor to quell the crap going on. Now, did they start to or not, that's a different box of frogs, however, they didn't do it maliciously because Ted was there. He has done nothing to prevent violence in Portland, he has an obvious, and unconstitutional slant. 3) Videos absolutely are valid, they just may not always have the context. Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Autumn McJavabean said: Women have equally as much rights as men do in the United States now. If you disagree, please explain how they're not. As for their body, it has nothing to do with controlling someone's body as much as the right finds it adherent people would kill a "potentially sentient life-form". Wage gap, for example. And yes, it has everything to do with controlling women. And it's just a fetus up until a certain point. A few cells can have a "heartbeat," but in the end that doesn't mean much. Those cells are just pulsing in a sense. It's not until a certain point that the heart AND the brain have fully developed. That's why you can't get an abortion after a certain point already. It should be a woman's choice whether or not she wants to have a kid or not. She's the one going to have to give birth. Some women literally can't even give birth because of health problems. Or maybe some people don't want that kid because they were r*ped. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said: I know what lying is, I never claimed anyone lied or that I myself lied. Again, a strawman. What makes a lie is the intent. They know that's not as objective, but they may still believe it to be true. Consider what is a delusion. You can have half-delusions. You can still endorse a view, does not mean you're spouting it because you wish to tell a false truth. Lying is telling a false truth with the intent and knowledge it's false. A strawman is assuming my argument or position X when it's not. Who is making baseless emotional claims? I'm sure not.As for the rest, thanks for proving my point. The claim made was emotional charged, not logically based, and has no evidence nor was supported with evidence. So, it can be dismissed as simple as I did. If you take issue with what my retort was, look to the OP message I replied to and see you should be going after both, not just one of us. Did you miss that I was dismissing a baseless, emotional claim? 🙄 Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 14 hours ago, Skycaptain said: Public perception of the police. Could people's view be tainted by the fact that most interactions with the police are because of something they don't like. Get burgled, and it's "why haven't you got the culprit in irons?" Police escorting an abnormal load, or directing traffic around an incident is making you late. Get a ticket for a driving offence and its almost never "Fair enough, I was wrong", its more "Why are you wasting your time doing this rather than arresting criminals". There's very much an "Us and them" mentality. Going back to the protests. My opinion is that law and order need to reclaim the streets. Defunding the police and other law enforcement agencies will do the opposite. Put as many patrols out on the streets as is physically possible. Such a public show is the best way of reassuring the majority of the public, who only want to live peacefully, that the authorities are getting things under control I expect this would at least work better in the UK, where (as far as I understand) there is more trust between police and civilians. I've been impressed with several things I've seen about UK police deescalating situations without violence, for example a man on the street brandishing a knife. US police are more likely to shoot him. I did a little research, since I live in the US, to check if my rough understanding was correct. Sounds like there's some degree of similar issues (e.g. racism) in UK policing but also differences. My rough sense of British culture is that African-British are more accepted in the UK as "just another person" and not seen so much as a different class, like they are here. One way of describing my understanding of the BLM goals, and "defund the police", is to have US police work more like UK police. Less force, more deescalation, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Arodash said: All of this stuff I see shows an extreme ignorance of how police actually operate You should make your suggestions to the police forces of the UK and NZ, share with them your understanding of how police actually operate. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Arodash said: if I could, I would, but i'll stick to my own country But US forces already carry guns. You could save a lot of lives by telling the New Zealanders what they're doing wrong. Incidentally I found the article (I think) about the NZ cops who were shot. They were approaching a wanted van when a man stepped out and opened fire on them. Unless they're fast draws, guns wouldn't have helped them. After this occurred, cops in the area were armed until the suspects were caught. Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, Arodash said: Practice safe sex Well, that's a no-brainer, but there are people who still get pregnant even after using condoms, birth control, all that sort of stuff. Probably doesn't happen a lot, but it still happens. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 But what about the anecdotal fact that this police officer was shot and killed recently in Toledo? He was armed but still died. Police being armed does not prevent all police deaths. The fact that police officers in NZ were also shot (and 1 killed) is not strong support of having officers constantly armed. We need statistical data, not anecdotes. 1 minute ago, Arodash said: Then, perhaps, refrain from it. Because the consequence is another human life This doesn't work if you're not ace. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Arodash said: Because they can fire back, if you know how shootouts worked you'd know that I'm aware that shootouts go better for you if you can shoot back, yes. Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 15 minutes ago, fragglerock said: Incidentally I found the article (I think) about the NZ cops who were shot. They were approaching a wanted van when a man stepped out and opened fire on them. Unless they're fast draws, guns wouldn't have helped them. After this occurred, cops in the area were armed until the suspects were caught. So you want to tell US police to not fight for their lives and just die in this situation instead of practice a holster draw to become faster and give them a better chance......mmmmmkay I am not going to you for police advice. Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Arodash said: Self control doesnt exist???? I had no idea. I don't think you understand. There are people that can't handle the thought of just not having sex (allosexuals more of for that matter). I'm more sex-indifferent, so me personally, I could probably be fine without having sex...but, I still want to have it someday and probably not just once when it comes down to it. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Arodash said: Self control doesnt exist???? I had no idea. What I'm referring to is that sex is immensely important to most people for their happiness and relationship satisfaction. They might well be able to refrain, yes. But do they want to give up all that enjoyment and bonding for a tiny chance of accidentally creating new life? 3 minutes ago, Arodash said: he wants to virtue signal to scum, people who want to tear down America, people who HARM the innocent people around them and then blame the police for all their woes. (emphasis added) This is very dehumanizing language. You're probably aware, just want to point that out. Quote *quick draw* this isnt the old west, I can personally draw my handgun from my holster, clearing my shirt, rack the slide and pull the trigger in less than a second. Its called repetition training, fundamentals Part of the reason for the protests (which we can refer to separately than the "violent protests" or "riots", as you like) is just how fast this can happen. I'm aware it can take less than a second to draw and fire a gun to end a human life. Part of people's issue is the frequency with which the decision to end a life is given less than a second of thought. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Mostly Peaceful Ryan said: So you want to tell US police to not fight for their lives and just die in this situation instead of practice a holster draw to become faster and give them a better chance No Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Arodash said: You gotta be Josey Wales with them pistols or else you'll be whistlin dixie Oh I got a better one Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Arodash said: not kill babies Bruh. They're fetuses until a certain point. Get over it. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Arodash said: I cant handle not smoking daily, but I dont anymore, I cant handle not wanting to eat twinkies for dinner but I dont. Self control exists, and if people make the choice not to exercise said self control like the adults they are, then they can live with the consequences of that and not kill babies Abortion (which we've somehow gotten on the topic of) is an area where I'm very defensive of people taking the course that seems right to them. Some people make the mistake of thinking anti-abortion folks just want to control bodies, and forget that they think it's actually murder. Some people make the mistake of thinking that pro-choice people do think abortion is murder, rather than similar to, say, having a period that happened to contain a fertilized egg. So if you feel that it's murder then I'm very sympathetic to your intense opposition to people taking even a chance of creating a life they're not going to look after. At the same time, it's worth remembering that some people really don't think this is murder, they're not pro-murder or anything. Incidentally, "abstinence-only" education has not been found to decrease the rates of premarital sex or unwanted pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education, which does not encourage abstinence-only, does a better job. (Source) Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Arodash said: i consider a baby at the point of conception. So you would say that even one tiny little cell is a baby? Link to post Share on other sites
Missing Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Elise Jennings said: Bruh. They're fetuses until a certain point. Get over it. 1 minute ago, Arodash said: i consider a baby at the point of conception. I came to this thread to watch people argue in circles about the Portland Protests, not what to call a person's pregnancy. Link to post Share on other sites
Fraggle Underdark Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, Arodash said: You may wanna go ask an officer who has had to kill in the line of duty how he or she feels, you may find it doesnt sit well with them. The frequency? Its low. Very low for our population and crime rates Incidentally, I have 2 uncles who are cops. One of them is a little bit of a jerk and the other's a great guy. I don't consider this that relevant but yes I know some cops. I've gone on a ride-along and was actually thinking of becoming a police officer. Did a lot of research. (Incidentally I highly recommend the book "Blue Blood" by Edward Conlon. Not for any point relevant to the discussion here, it's just a great book, written by a cop about his experiences. Very well written and engaging.) I'm aware that most people who kill find it uncomfortable, soldiers included. Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Mackenzie Holiday said: I came to this thread to watch people argue in circles about the Portland Protests, not what to call a person's pregnancy. It somehow came up with the topic of male privilege pretty much and saying how men have more rights than women...and that came up with the topic of oppression. Link to post Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Are the Portland Protest about Pro-choice? I think I missed something Link to post Share on other sites
Madelise Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Arodash said: if it has the potention to become human life as it does at conception, yes. Now, I suggest we get back on topic if you wish to discuss abortion you can pm me or make a thread I'm not going to pm you about anything of the previous stuff that got us off topic. That would be pointless and would get us nowhere. Let's just drop it completely and get back to topic. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Autumn McJavabean said: Most news medias have a slant, sadly. As for Fox, their written articles are not nearly as biased as their TV shows. 1) The protestors generally start the shit. Feds put up a fence to keep them out, the illegally protesting (without a permit and taking control of a public park as their personal "safe-space" took it down. They actively call for the death of officers. As a journalist that has covered these protests since Trump was elected, 99% pf the time when they claim PPB attacked first, it's false. The police also give ample amounts of warnings. 2) They didn't gas the mayor because he's the mayor, they gassed the mayor to quell the crap going on. Now, did they start to or not, that's a different box of frogs, however, they didn't do it maliciously because Ted was there. He has done nothing to prevent violence in Portland, he has an obvious, and unconstitutional slant. 3) Videos absolutely are valid, they just may not always have the context. 1. If you want to provide the evidence that the initial start of the riot is due to protesters rather than the officers, you're free to do so. There's no evidence any one has provided to support the claim that protesters initially started it. All they have is current footage of the riot, and that says nothing about the start of it all. 2. See above. If the mayor saw that the protests are peaceful, he is within his rights to not support them. 3. Videos are valid to a extent. They still need contents and supporting evidences to corrobate. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 36 minutes ago, Arodash said: I think we can all agree that the riots need to be dealt with right? And that the officers there desserve to be treated like, people. And the same goes for the people who are there to genuinly peacefully protest, because they are there, they are but they are getting swept up in the crap going on with the riotters and the cops and the federal court house stuff Can we all at least agree on that? Does the conflict needs to end sure. And have you seen the headlines? They're attacking mothers, veterans, fathers with leafblowers, grandparents. And there's no evidence people has provided that the protests weren't peaceful before the officers has arrived. I'm waiting on that. Link to post Share on other sites
Missing Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 41 minutes ago, Arodash said: I think we can all agree that the riots need to be dealt with right? And that the officers there desserve to be treated like, people. And the same goes for the people who are there to genuinly peacefully protest, because they are there, they are but they are getting swept up in the crap going on with the riotters and the cops and the federal court house stuff Can we all at least agree on that? Maybe? I feel like these points you're asking us to agree on were framed in a biased way, so it's hard to be sure what you'll think I'm agreeing to if I say yes or no, and I think outlining my thoughts on the matter goes against the spirit of your question. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Mackenzie Holiday said: Maybe? I feel like these points you're asking us to agree on were framed in a biased way, so it's hard to be sure what you'll think I'm agreeing to if I say yes or no, and I think outlining my thoughts on the matter goes against the spirit of your question. The guy keeps repeating the point without providing evidence for the point that protesters has actually started it all (before the officers arrived). I'm waiting on that evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
R_1 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 Just now, Arodash said: I have provided evidence more than once. Im going to ask you one more time to refrain from making personal attacks. And please dont misgender me All you provided is evidence of the current situation of Portland. Not before the officers has arrived. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.