George Floyd dies after police knelt on his neck (MOD NOTE IN POST #1)

Deebles McBeebles

JJayoo wrote: »

Hey will you ever fcuk off with your facts and logic, we need to get trump out, we tried gender/metoo/climate but race is the golden ticket.

THE_SHEEP wrote: »

Best post on this thread . Describes what is " REALLY " going on .

Its actually one of the stupidest things I've seen on this thread so far. Offensive actually, to relate whats going on with Trump as if its just a way to get him out of office. Then bring in other meaningful causes as if they aren't important.

You can tell the saddo's who "support" Trump from afar though.

Silentcorner

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Its actually one of the stupidest things I've seen on this thread so far. Offensive actually, to relate whats going on with Trump as if its just a way to get him out of office. Then bring in other meaningful causes as if they aren't important.

You can tell the saddo's who "support" Trump from afar though.

Actually, what you have just said is ridiculous.

There has been widespread looting and rioting in predominately Democratic run cities....huge protests have been facilitated despite a lockdown over a global pandemic.

There is an election in 6 months....

And you are offended at the suggestion that there are people willing to use these protests for political ends.

The height of naval gazing right there!!!

Justin Credible Darts

Tell me how wrote: »

You were asked for facts yesterday to support your opinions and you refused to offer any while I offered links to the information which helped me inform my opinion as well as offering evidence of the protests which I have observed.

But you just adamantly stuck to your position that because you are entitled to an opinion, that opinion is of equal value to one supported with evidence.

I was told that .8% of protesters were arrested. That might be a fact.
But that does not mean the other 99.2 were civil and behaved.
It just means they were not arrested, it does not conclusively prove those 99.2 were peaceful. It all depends on how you read or interpret stats.



Getting it yet ?



And that does not make it okay to personally insults people, or label them an orange man, or for another to insinuate others are racist.
Or have people make out you have to be one side or the other.


People whipped into a frenzy are quick to attack anyone who dare have the audacity to have an opinion or question things and not just blindly believe everything they are told.


This is a discussion forum. but when people resort to personal attacks you know they have failed in their reasoning.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Actually, what you have just said is ridiculous.

There has been widespread looting and rioting in predominately Democratic run cities....huge protests have been facilitated despite a lockdown over a global pandemic.

There is an election in 6 months....

And you are offended at the suggestion that there are people willing to use these protests for political ends.

The height of naval gazing right there!!!

Nearly everyone uses nearly everything for political ends, most definitely when the thing is influenced by political action.

Complaining about a governments preparedness and strategy on things which they have specifically been elected to provide leadership is not playing games or anything of the sort. It is holding them to account.

Tell me how

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I was told that .8% of protesters were arrested. That might be a fact.
But that does not mean the other 99.2 were civil and behaved.
It just means they were not arrested, it does not conclusively prove those 99.2 were peaceful. It all depends on how you read or interpret stats.



Getting it yet ?



And that does not make it okay to personally insults people, or label them an orange man, or for another to insinuate others are racist.
Or have people make out you have to be one side or the other.


People whipped into a frenzy are quick to attack anyone who dare have the audacity to have an opinion or question things and not just blindly believe everything they are told.


This is a discussion forum. but when people resort to personal attacks you know they have failed in their reasoning.

This wailing and gnashing of teeth at being called out for posting stuff that doesn't make sense is really getting tiresome.

When you are intent on showing people who you are, don't be surprised when they identify you as such.

joe40

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I was told that .8% of protesters were arrested. That might be a fact.
But that does not mean the other 99.2 were civil and behaved.
It just means they were not arrested, it does not conclusively prove those 99.2 were peaceful. It all depends on how you read or interpret stats.



Getting it yet ?



And that does not make it okay to personally insults people, or label them an orange man, or for another to insinuate others are racist.
Or have people make out you have to be one side or the other.


People whipped into a frenzy are quick to attack anyone who dare have the audacity to have an opinion or question things and not just blindly believe everything they are told.


This is a discussion forum. but when people resort to personal attacks you know they have failed in their reasoning.

You were never labeled an orange man that is a blatant lie.
It is my post you are referring to from a few days back.

It was in relation to the confederate flag and the racing car driver.

I was making a comparison between the orange orders insistence on flying flags regardless of insult caused to the racing car driver's insistence on flying flags regardless of insult caused.

No one called you an orange man. The analogy between the two situations was been made.

You are choosing to find offense.

Justin Credible Darts

Tell me how wrote: »

This wailing and gnashing of teeth at being called out for posting stuff that doesn't make sense is really getting tiresome.

When you are intent on showing people who you are, don't be surprised when they identify you as such.

Guess that is the difference between you and I.


I do not resort to making things personal, you however seem to clearly think otherwise as your post clearly proves.


The fact you have no issue with people making things personal just proves my point

Justin Credible Darts

joe40 wrote: »

You were never labeled an orange man that is a blatant lie.
It is my post you are referring to from a few days back.

It was in relation to the confederate flag and the racing car driver.

I was making a comparison between the orange orders insistence on flying flags regardless of insult caused to the racing car driver's insistence on flying flags regardless of insult caused.

No one called you an orange man. The analogy between the two situations was been made.

You are choosing to find offense.

Then tell me why was the orange order brought up when my initial post was about racism in general.


Go back and check and you will see I made ZERO reference to the flag, never ever mentioned it., but people wrongly presumed and then tried to lecture me on the flag...I had never mentioned, and brought up the orange order insinuating i would also be a supporter of that.


The posts are still there and unedited and back up my points.


No skirt around that or deflect all you like, reality is people will and have tried to label others as soon as something they dont agree with is said.

joe40

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Then tell me why was the orange order brought up when my initial post was about racism in general.


Go back and check and you will see I made ZERO reference to the flag, never ever mentioned it., but people wrongly presumed and then tried to lecture me on the flag...I had never mentioned, and brought up the orange order insinuating i would also be a supporter of that.


The posts are still there and unedited and back up my points.


No skirt around that or deflect all you like, reality is people will and have tried to label others as soon as something they dont agree with is said.

Your previous post was asking about the Cork supporters would they not be allowed to fly that flag. There were several posts from different people about the issue.

I still did not refer to you as an orange man. That is simply not true.

Tell me how

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Guess that is the difference between you and I.


I do not resort to making things personal, you however seem to clearly think otherwise as your post clearly proves.


The fact you have no issue with people making things personal just proves my point

Didn't you get a card on this thread for making it personal?

Justin Credible Darts

Tell me how wrote: »

Didn't you get a card on this thread for making it personal?

another fabrication of the truth.
I got a warning for stating on open forum how i was not going to engage with another member and how i put them on ignore , and who I have not engaged with since, despite their efforts to illicit a response.



There is a difference,

Justin Credible Darts

joe40 wrote: »

Your previous post was asking about the Cork supporters would they not be allowed to fly that flag. There were several posts from different people about the issue.

I still did not refer to you as an orange man. That is simply not true.

my initial post made no reference to the flag, or nascar etc....that is a fact.
Deflect all you want, the initial post is still there and unedited and clearly shows I was speaking about racism in general.


It is not my fault you read it wrong and presumed incorrectly

Tell me how

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

another fabrication of the truth.
I got a warning for stating on open forum how i was not going to engage with another member and how i put them on ignore , and who I have not engaged with since, despite their efforts to illicit a response.



There is a difference,

Really? Sounds like a text book case of making something personal. I mean you could have just ignored the poster but you had to......... make it personal.

Justin Credible Darts

of course this thread is now being derailed, and only proving my point how having a different opinion can get you hounded.

I rest my case.

Stateofyou

Silentcorner wrote: »

Actually, what you have just said is ridiculous.

There has been widespread looting and rioting in predominately Democratic run cities....huge protests have been facilitated despite a lockdown over a global pandemic.

There is an election in 6 months....

And you are offended at the suggestion that there are people willing to use these protests for political ends.

The height of naval gazing right there!!!

You clearly have no idea that most urban big cities are Democrat, and the reasons for that. Lol.

joe40

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

of course this thread is now being derailed, and only proving my point how having a different opinion can get you hounded.

I rest my case.

Did you make comments about the confederate flags in the course of "the conversation" ie over a few posts by several contributors.

This is important you're accusing me of calling you something which I didn't do. If you can prove it, quote the post.

I'm not talking about this anymore it is not the topic under discussion

Silentcorner

Stateofyou wrote: »

You clearly have no idea that most urban big cities are Democrat, and the reasons for that. Lol.

Of course I couldn't....I'm no where near as bright as you!!!

Stateofyou

Silentcorner wrote: »

Of course I couldn't....I'm no where near as bright as you!!!

Well experience with you on this thread shows you're quite comfortable spouting nonsense you have no direct experience of or education around. Try looking into your deeply held biases on google first, before you start spouting nonsense all around you.

Silentcorner

Stateofyou wrote: »

Well experience with you on this thread shows you're quite comfortable spouting nonsense you have no direct experience of or education around. Try looking into your deeply held biases on google first, before you start spouting nonsense all around you.

Ooookaaay then!!!

Tell me how

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

of course this thread is now being derailed, and only proving my point how having a different opinion can get you hounded.

I rest my case.

Can I just point this out because I do recognize that this is bothering you.

'Having a different opinion' does not mean that you are going to get hounded. I mean, it seems to me that the balance on this thread is there are more individual posters who think the protests are baseless so if anything, those with the different opinions are the ones saying there is merit to the protesting.

What motivates me to get in to an in depth back and forth with someone is when they cannot show 'how' they have formed their opinion in a reasonable way.

Because that just turns it in to a Man Utd vs Liverpool type conversation with just blind allegiance to a position without considering exactly what is going on.

2u2me

take everything wrote: »

1000 people killed by cops in the US every year. Most of those not unarmed.

I would encourage people to fact-check this stuff (not least because I'd like to know the honest context to all this).

This one I've seen before. It comes from Washington Post's comprehensive database of all police shootings that lead to a fatality since 2015. (Only 800/1000 cases actually know the race of the victim/cop)[I think not all police departments record the race of victim & cop]
So at a stretch you could say that 200 extra black people were killed by white cops; but that is a stretch since the data comes from WaPo.

Tucker Carlson then broke down this list on his show; as of yet I haven't seen anyone say it's wrong.
I broke down the statistics even further in this post.

2u2me

Christy42 wrote: »

The left have had protests some of which went out of control. However at every stage there has been demands and you know what they want whether you agree with it or not.

Christy42 wrote: »

You seem to be coming to the same conclusions as the protestors really.

I think your woefully inaccurate here. About a week behind. Still parotting the party line that 'that's not what they mean'.

It is what they mean.

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

I think your woefully inaccurate here. About a week behind. Still parotting the party line that 'that's not what they mean'.

It is what they mean.

As already pointed out, only 1/3 of the BLM group could be said to want abolishment of police.

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

there are more individual posters who think the protests are baseless so if anything, those with the different opinions are the ones saying there is merit to the protesting.

What motivates me to get in to an in depth back and forth with someone is when they cannot show 'how' they have formed their opinion in a reasonable way.

More of this "there are boogey men out there we need to be scared of" stuff.

Post up the material and make your case. Can we please stop with these gross oversimplifications and sweeping generalizations.

Have you listened to that Sam Harris podcast , tell me?

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

As already pointed out, only 1/3 of the BLM group could be said to want abolishment of police.

so some of them, are we just sweeping their opinion under the carpet?

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

so some of them, are we just sweeping their opinion under the carpet?

No, but we are not implying, as you are that it is clear what the entire movement wants.

2u2me

Tell me how wrote: »

No, but we are not implying, as you are that it is clear what the entire movement wants.

We need to look at all of the demands of the protestors, no? I'm implying nothing, merely correcting the record that is what some protestors mean. We need to start to listening to them and not pretending otherwise.

"Defend the police"
"Abolish the police"

We heard it for a week; that's not what they mean; now 1/3 of the people admit that's what they mean. and it's growing.

What else do they mean?

"Silence is violence"?
"Enemy or ally"?

Overheal

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

He said 95% of blacks are killed by other blacks. He also said that while the 12 days of violence and rioting were taking place after Floyds killing Chicago saw 25 murders in a few days the highest in over 60 years in that city and it was black on black murders and the media gave it little or no coverage. I wonder why? A good podcast full of facts which go against the narrative of all cops being racist thats being spouted out by so many idiots lately.

Take me through your logic:

How does black on black crime prove cops aren’t racist?

Tell me how

2u2me wrote: »

More of this "there are boogey men out there we need to be scared of" stuff.

Post up the material and make your case. Can we please stop with these gross oversimplifications and sweeping generalizations.

Have you listened to that Sam Harris podcast , tell me?

The Sam Harris podcast where you posted an excerpt which mentions about defunding the police but then talks as if that meant abolish the police entirely and not to have a new police force of any sort.

Can you point to me any group advocating for a self policing society in its entirety so we can see just what the numbers are.

Post up the material and make your case.

Overheal

take everything wrote: »

Listened to that there.
People should listen to it.
He cuts through the woke celebrity/media offence-taking and priority of feelings over facts which does nothing but obscure what's really happening.

A few things he lays out facts and acknowledges that they will be at odd with these feelings and unpopular.

IIRC they are:

1000 people killed by cops in the US every year. Most of those not unarmed.

”most” being what, only 60%? 400 unarmed people shot by cops doesn’t sound acceptable to me. Is it acceptable to you?

Translating to 1 in 10000 of police arrests and 1 in 60000 police encounters.

Black and Hispanic officers more likely to kill black and Hispanic people. White cops less likely to do do so.

Hardly anyone remembers similar cases of similar police brutality/killings against white suspects. And apparently there are many similar cases (he cites various cases including killing of a white guy Tony Tempa (not sure of spelling because like many I never heard of him)).

Then he talks about how 25% of arrests are of black people, 50% of arrests are of white.

And people might say that's outrageous, since blacks are only 13% of the population.

But here's the punchline. They account for 50% of murders. So this puts things in context. It's a context that is badly missing from the debate.

50% or closed cases. 40% of murders go unsolved, identity of the murderer unknown.

He also talks about how most black murders are black on black (the vast majority IIRC) not white on black.

I would encourage people to fact-check this stuff (not least because I'd like to know the honest context to all this).

This is the story that's not sexy to media apparently. Not as sexy as the story that appeals to the woke brigade.

And Harris doesn't like Trump. He wants him gone in November. So his podcast is far from a dog whistle to the latent racists out there. He's a rational, levelheaded guy that doesn't peddle in lowest common denominator feelings

.