BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Ah yet more pot stirring I see. . :rolleyes:

But hey Congratulations!

Thats the point - just in case you and others missed it.

I did credit him. And yes the guy is a laywer. He also happens to be African American and supports legal gun control. He is not just a 'gun nut' as painted by some here who claim he can't be objective because of who he is or what he is.

Understand now?

Still not understanding why it’s important to mention he’s African American. What does it lend to the point you are making? Rather it seems to have undermined and distracted from it.

statesaver

statesaver wrote: »

If it was the other way round and someone posted that you would call them rasist.

Why would the colour of somebody's skin influence whether they are an expert in an area? What does it add?

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's what you got from what I posted ? did you even read it or just react as fast as you could

your the only one obsessed with race ,

sorta racist mate …...

Have I ever linked something and try to qualify the statement based on the colour of their skin?

gozunda

statesaver wrote: »

If it was the other way round and someone posted that you would call them rasist.

Agreed. I'd suggest it liitle more than attempted point scoring because someone lost an argument tbh.

The same lot that refuse to criticise any activities of the blm. Yet scream blue murder when others point out what's wrong with that.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Agreed. I'd suggest it liitle more than attempted point scoring because someone lost an argument tbh.

The same lot that refuse to criticise any activities of the blm. Yet scream blue murder when others point out what's wrong with that.

You have yet failed to answer the question of how the lawyer being African American is relevant

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Agreed. I'd suggest it liitle more than attempted point scoring because someone lost an argument tbh.

The same lot that refuse to criticise any activities of the blm. Yet scream blue murder when others point out what's wrong with that.

At least admit you were in the wrong by referring the solicitors skin colour? How is it point scoring? Genuinely an attempt to understand why you would think that's somebody's skin colour would add/take away clout from their opinion.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So been African American means you are not a gun nut? Don't know how the colour of his skin would be relevant to his view on gun control.

You are getting a bit desperate there dazzler. That load of ****e is as transparent as a sheet of clingfilm .

Id suggest you put down that spade and step away from the hole you are digging for yourself before you fall in head first lol.

brentanrodgers

Quality deflection posts here - a Trump supporter was assassinated last night by the antifa/blm mob, groups which can do no wrong according to some on here.

statesaver

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would the colour of somebody's skin influence whether they are an expert in an area? What does it add?

It's a black man talking about BLM ' protests ', riots.

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

why do you need to differentiate between black and white victims or cops or offenders ?

are you saying race isn't an issue here ?

Surely it should be the ALL lives matter movement then .

Race is an issue here but people's professional opinions is different. But I like to think that somebody's professional opinion is based on their expertise rather than their skin colour.

Overheal

statesaver wrote: »

It's a black man talking about BLM ' protests ', riots.

What relevance is it that he is black?

gozunda

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's what you got from what I posted ? did you even read it or just react as fast as you could

your the only one obsessed with race ,

sorta racist mate …...

Just ignore them. The same would try and argue with a sign post to try and make themselves look good. :pac:

Broadstone Bob

LoL at the left wing extremists trying to set people up as racists on an anonymous Internet forum so they can congratulate themselves on how righteous they are

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Just ignore them. The same would try and argue with a sign post to try and make themselves look good. :pac:

Sounds like you acknowledge what you said was racist but you don’t actually want to own up to that.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

You are getting a bit desperate there dazzler. That load of ****e is as transparent as a sheet of clingfilm .

Id suggest you put down that spade and step away from the hole you are digging for yourself before you fall in head first lol.

Genuinely curious to for you to explain my "hole".

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have I ever linked something and try to qualify the statement based on the colour of their skin?

Yes you have Dazzler. And it's not a nice thing for someone who claims to be a blm supporter.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Genuinely curious to for you to explain my "hole".

Rflol. Id rather not Dazzler .....

Overheal

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

LoL at the left wing extremists trying to set people up as racists on an anonymous Internet forum so they can congratulate themselves on how righteous they are

Nobody was set up. It was an unforced comment by the user to endorse a lawyers opinion by citing him being African American as a credence lending justification

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Yes you have Dazzler. And it's not a nice thing for someone who claims to be a blm supporter.



Rflol. Id rather not Dazzler .....

Please do link. Feels like you are trying to not explain why skin colour is important in valuing somebody's opinion.

Tea drinker

Well TBH the whole "I accused you of racism now prove you aren't" argument is getting popular here, not as much say as the **** fest that is twitter or some other forum for whingers, but yeah, it's getting up there.

mynamejeff

Deleted User wrote: »

Race is an issue here but people's professional opinions is different. But I like to think that somebody's professional opinion is based on their expertise rather than their skin colour.

would Obama have been elected if he was white ?

profession is one thing identity is another. How some one identifies is much more important . Like the wealthy black nba players who identified as black until they realised how much it would cost them

how do you think the many many non white police feel being labelled and targeted for attack as racist facists by blm

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

would Obama have been elected if he was white ?

profession is one thing identity is another. How some one identifies is much more important . Like the wealthy black nba players who identified as black until they realised how much it would cost them

how do you think the many many non white police feel being labelled and targeted for attack as racist facists by blm

****ing hell, Jeff. Denying somebody is black because of how much they earn......

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds like you acknowledge what you said was racist but you don’t actually want to own up to that.

The only racist bashing going on is you Overhreal

I see you must have delibetaly missed my previous comment

Lol.

Ah yet more pot stirring I see by another member of the pose . 

But hey Congratulations!

Thats the point - just in case you and others missed it.

I did credit him. And yes the guy is a laywer. He also happens to be African American and supports legal gun control. He is not just a 'gun nut' as painted by some here who claim he can't be objective because of who he is or what he is.

Understand now?

And overheal - if you don't understand that. I cant help you and tbh I doubt anyone can help you

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

The only racist bashing going on is you Overhreal

I see you must have delibetaly missed my previous comment

Lol.

Ah yet more pot stirring I see by another member of the pose . 

But hey Congratulations!

Thats the point - just in case you and others missed it.



And overheal - if you don't understand that. I cant help you and tbh I doubt anyone can help you

You’re getting awfully defensive when I just asked why his being African American is an important factor in deciding whether his view on the law is more or less valid? You still have not answered that, presumably because you know there is no good answer, yet you decided at the time it made his opinion more valid anyway.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

We have video evidence of people weapons attacking the van the people in. They have the people in the van cornered and are attacking it. How is that less bad than someone throwing 'something' at KR, which he likely had no awareness of.

You do realise that you are arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me because you even agreed with my summation of it before. See your own quote below from post #3858.

I'm fully in agreeing on the level of reasonable force you're calling for in this van situation, however it isn't at all consistent with arguments being made for KR's self defense

But I'll answer your question nonetheless.

It's not less bad. It's just a different sort of assault, and it shouldn't be allowed to continue. I've already condemned it. If the person in the van reasonably fears for their life, then I would be ok with them using self-defence. I just gave a couple of options in my earlier post for different levels of response.

I suppose it all depends on the level of threat the person in the van feels. There is a smidgeon of protection in the van as there is a shield around you. So maybe, just maybe you might feel a little safer in it and maybe, just maybe, be expected to show a tiny bit more restraint. But that can be argued eitherways but if the person in the van shot someone who was attacking the van, I'd probably be ok with it. KR had no shield around him so it's not quite the same as the van.

Anyway, what has the van incident got to do with the circumstances about the KR shooting? That's just whataboutism.

I don't think KR has grounds for self defense yet he may get off due to US laws being a mess.

Another way of wording that is KR acted completely legally.

Tea drinker

Deleted User wrote: »

Please do link. Feels like you are trying to not explain why skin colour is important in valuing somebody's opinion.

Actually the BLM people argued strongly that skin colour was a factor in the validity of opinions, "you wouldn't know because you are white" etc is a common point - and one I kind of agree with. I'm also not american and never done anything beyond holiday in America. So opinions can be qualified.
Just for context (and a friendly reminder) BLM is in the title so colour may come up during discussions.

I also have an opinion that racist comments or falsely labelling someone as racist is something which is best dealt with through moderation. I'm assuming self control is off the table for some time now.

Overheal

Tea drinker wrote: »

Actually the BLM people argued strongly that skin colour was a factor in the validity of opinions, "you wouldn't know because you are white" etc is a common point - and one I kind of agree with. I'm also not american and never done anything beyond holiday in America. So opinions can be qualified.

Opinions on the law though?

It would then be a wonder why the best lawyers in the country aren’t all black..

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Lol.

Ah yet more pot stirring I see by another member of the pose . :rolleyes:

But hey Congratulations!

Thats the point - just in case you and others missed it.

I did credit him. And yes the guy is a laywer. He also happens to be African American and supports legal gun control. He is not just a 'gun nut' as painted by some here who claim he can't be objective because of who he is or what he is.

Understand now?

You mean the gun nut that you first mentioned? Just clarify what you meant by"gun nut" when you first mentioned it. Then we can move on.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

You’re getting awfully defensive when I just asked why his being African American is an important factor in deciding whether his view on the law is more or less valid? You still have not answered that, presumably because you know there is no good answer, yet you decided at the time it made his opinion more valid anyway.

Nope. Thems your words. Not mine. I presume you are just making this ****e as you go along. Didn't read what was written or just didn't understand it no?

Here it is again

Lol.
Thats the point - just in case you and others missed it.

I did credit him. And yes the guy is a laywer. He also happens to be African American and supports legal gun control. He is not just a 'gun nut' as painted by some here who claim he can't be objective because of who he is or what he is.

Understand now no?

To but this finally to bed. If you stop with the crapola and bother to read the comment in question. You will notice - what I've highlighted in your comment above - that no such thing was said - as you know well.

This is the original comment:

Well as I reposted the video detailing this - let me see 'Tell me how' - how exactly would this particular persons opinion on the issue of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident be better than your own?
He's a lawyer
He's African American
He knows about the legalities of gun ownership and gun control
He lives in the US
So yes I guess the guy most likley knows a hell of a lot more than anyone here. Including you.

First it is clearly stated the video guys "opinion" on the issue of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident would clearly provide better insite than the posters own unqualified opinion

Secondly the detail of the videos guys profile in contrast with wha was said about him. Viz.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you really think a 2A rights enthusiast and owner of a gun business is going to be objective?

You ask why I mention he is African Ameican? For same reason I mention he is a lawyer, knows about gun ownership, and lives in the US. Because the poster who criticised him tried to run him down implying his opinion on the Kyle Rittenhouse was better than the videos guy. I called that out as rubbish. You will note there is no reference to "deciding whether his view on the law is more or less valid whatsoever

And finally I clearly state that "yes I guess the guy most likley knows a hell of a lot more than anyone here. Including you."

That remains. So take the hate filled rubbish you've posted and file it under "B" for bull****.


I'll leave you to that. Bye

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Didn't read what was written or just didn't understand it no?

Yes I understand you’re still bringing up he is African American in some attempt to credit his opinion on the law

It actually makes me sad that in a country like Ireland after all the progress we have made. People would still be basing validity of opinions on somebody's skin colour.