|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880199 - 08/14/20 01:53 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ya because your original comment wasnt enough.
We should believe what you claim you meant after everyone calls it a deplorable and anti american position
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26880203 - 08/14/20 01:57 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, please explain how a cop comes to the conclusion that some one in the crowd intentionally wore black to help antifa sneak into the crowd anonymously?
Do you really not see how that is profiling? Do you really not see how detaining/arresting people on suspicion with absolutely 0 evidence a crime has been committed is tyranny?
Profiling is only profiling when a demographic is unjustly targeted when they aren't committing more or less crimes than anyone else.
Quote:
Ya because your original comment wasnt enough.
We should believe what you claim you meant after everyone calls it a deplorable and anti american position
If Ballsalsa had asked me on page one if it was opinion or fact instead of coming in with fists swinging, I would have said it was my strong opinion based on my observations on page 1.
No one asked, they just all started waving their penises around instead.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 01:59 PM)
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880204 - 08/14/20 01:58 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok so here you are saying police are justified in profiling people wearing black because people who wear black commit crimes. Jesus dude
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880208 - 08/14/20 02:00 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Ok so here you are saying police are justified in profiling people wearing black because people who wear black commit crimes. Jesus dude 
People who dress all in black, specifically including black face masks, and assemble in groups should absolutely be profiled as this "gang" commits more crime than most people by association, regardless of their skin color or any other factor.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26880211 - 08/14/20 02:02 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok so now you're adding qualifiers aka moving goal posts. This is exactly why people are shitting on fal right now.
If you were any other poster he would roll in here call you the make believe king etc.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880215 - 08/14/20 02:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Wearing black does not make you a criminal. Your unpatriotic positions are truly reprehensible.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880218 - 08/14/20 02:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wearing black does not make you a criminal.
No fucking shit.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880219 - 08/14/20 02:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ok so now you're adding qualifiers aka moving goal posts.
No I'm not.
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26880223 - 08/14/20 02:11 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok... then why should cops be allowed to detain you for wearing black in a crowd?
What the fuck dude it's like you forget what you were just arguing. Your original comment, which I quoted on the last page, said nothing about being in groups, face masks, or anything like that.
This is your original comment
Quote:
Vahn421 said: I am in favor of authorities arresting people that break the law. Also, if you're all going to wear black to help people break the law, that makes you a potential accomplice if they are struggling to find out who committed the crime....
Antifa wear black specifically so they can commit crime and slip back into anonymity. I'm pretty sure there's some law that could infer everyone close that is wearing black is an accomplice to the crime. And if there isn't, there ought to be.
Stop acting like I'm "violating rights" when my position is to act defensively and strike second, not first.
The bad thing about the internet is that people can still read what you actually said even after you try to move the goal posts
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880228 - 08/14/20 02:12 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"Everyone close that is wearing black is an accomplice to that crime"
Sounds like youre saying people in a crowd wearing black should be profiled and detained/arrested with 0 evidence to support it, as per my original claim
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880264 - 08/14/20 02:43 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ok... then why should cops be allowed to detain you for wearing black in a crowd?
They shouldn't, unless a crime is committed by a member of your group and you're all serving as cover for that person. In that case, the lines get really fucking blurry for me.
There is criteria for my ideas, my man. Stop trying to act like they are blanket statements. I'm not explaining every nuance of my position every time I post.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26880266 - 08/14/20 02:43 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Why did you hold those videos up as good examples, instead of calling out the make believe in them?
Look, I know you believe the protesters were justified in their attack on the truck, but my unscientific poll shows most people here don't share your opinion. Many people do agree that was unjustified violence.
Regardless, my claim was "he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it". It was a general comment about the discourse I'm seeing here. I provided examples above supporting my point.
Here's another recent example:
Quote:
koods said: This is a completely batshit crazy paragraph. It just needs to be said.
Do you think that was a good rebuttal? Again, I'm just describing the general discourse here.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Why is someone who claims to hate make believe amplifying what is obviously make believe?
I'm confused - are you saying the video of the protesters attacking the truck was make believe?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (08/14/20 03:07 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26880273 - 08/14/20 02:50 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: And where do you see it clearly stated to be personal opinion? Does "hypothetically" mean 'my personal opinion' according to you? Because my understanding is that an opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence; a hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Vahn clearly states "hypothetically".
Looks like more make believe from you.
Vahn confirmed my understanding. I agree he could've been more clear for people here who aren't trying to understand him.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (08/14/20 03:04 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880283 - 08/14/20 02:58 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: fal nitpicks and twists words endlessly. He claimed I said the cop who pushed guigino wanted to kill him because I accidentally used murder and homicide interchangeably. He nit picked that for pages and pages in multiple threads even though he "knew what I was trying to say".
He is very interested in semantics and the fact he keeps letting you off the hook for continually make believing and being hyperbolic really speaks to his hypocrisy.
Actually, I remember you defending the use of the word murder for pages and pages ("Murder and homicide are the same thing"). But now that you've said murder was the wrong word, there's nothing more to disagree about.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880289 - 08/14/20 03:03 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Ok so now you're adding qualifiers aka moving goal posts.
Actually, he's clarifying his original position, now that someone's finally interested.
Or are YOU the one hung up semantics?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 48 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880301 - 08/14/20 03:09 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Why did you hold those videos up as good examples, instead of calling out the make believe in them?
Look, I know you believe the protesters were justified in their attack on the truck, but my unscientific poll shows most people here don't share your opinion. Many people do agree that was unjustified violence.
Regardless, my claim was "he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it". It was a general comment about the discourse I'm seeing here. I provided other examples above supporting my point.
Here's another recent example:
Quote:
koods said: This is a completely batshit crazy paragraph. It just needs to be said.
Do you think that was a good rebuttal? Again, I'm just describing the general discourse here.
You aren't describing the general discourse - you've already stated that better responses exist, yet for some reason you won't include them in your consideration:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Again, the question was if Vahn is doing a "better job defending his position than others have in attacking it" I would say yes.
I realize you take exception, because you yourself had a better response than others (as usual).
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Why is someone who claims to hate make believe amplifying what is obviously make believe?
I'm confused - are you saying the video of the protesters attacking the truck was make believe?
I already explicitly stated what constituted as make believe: the video "identifies the protesters as "peaceful Antifa BLM" despite nothing in the video providing for such an identification". This is relevant considering you suggested the video was brought force as evidence for Antifa™ being an organized domestic terror group, but without the make believe identification in the title there is nothing in the video connecting the protesters to Antifa™.
No comment on your decision to uncritically amplify the video by serial liars Project Veritas?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: And where do you see it clearly stated to be personal opinion? Does "hypothetically" mean 'my personal opinion' according to you? Because my understanding is that an opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence; a hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Vahn clearly states "hypothetically".
Looks like more make believe from you.
Vahn confirmed my understanding. I agree he could've been more clear for people here interested in understanding him.
Ok, so if you agree that he could have been more clear, why did you initially state it was clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion?
And, once again, no comment on your make believe regarding the presence of question marks in the hypothetical/opinion?
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26880307 - 08/14/20 03:11 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No comment on your decision to uncritically amplify the video by serial liars Project Veritas?
Why would who presented a video have anything to do with its content? Videos typically speak for themselves unless they're clipped constantly.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26880309 - 08/14/20 03:12 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, so if you agree that he could have been more clear, why did you initially state it was clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion?
Because to Falcon, it was obvious. Everyone else seems to need a little help and Falcon was giving you all the benefit of the doubt.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 03:13 PM)
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26880313 - 08/14/20 03:14 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: I totally stand by what I said. I wasn't looking to "prove" that original claim, anyway. I was sharing my opinion on how I view it and I wanted to see how others viewed it as well. Not all political discussions are contingent on evidence. Some things are predictions or hypothetical assumptions. You may call them ridiculous, but I find them to be quite grounded in reality relative to what has happened historically in other countries if you just study history a little bit.
Mobs are mindless. You have no idea how bad it all can get. The only thing keeping these people in check IS the law and society.
As those things crumble, the mob is going to go insane, with Antifa leading the charge. Best be prepared, it's one step at a time.
Here's the next step into total chaos far leftists want to take, with Antifa supporting them I'm sure.
Shouldn't the society or system address WHY there's a backlash taking place? I mean, we're all a product of that system, maybe change it needed, correct?
I don't think suggesting 'just stop' is a fix to this issue. How about addressing why this is happening? Also, this isn't just about Antifa or BLM, the protests were wide spread and those groups were just a small percentage of the overall protesters.
What's the proposition for addressing society?
When children freak out and start breaking shit, you stay calm and put them in time out. Some adults still need time out. Sometimes punishment first IS how you address it. Problem is, these parents seemingly didn't do their job right.
And yes, you're right about the average protester... and it isn't them I'm concerned about.
Well yes, I don't think anyone is suggesting not to charge and arrest people who are breaking the law, but let's move beyond that factor. Why is this happening is the larger question in my opinion.
As a society, we can just react and play dumb, or we can be proactive and engage the people and the mindset behind the movements.
I understand that The Establishment does NOT want to admit there's any structural problems in our system, therefore any backlash is just illegitimate in nature. If we want to be intellectually honest, we have to own up to those structural issues and see if some changes can happen, are you open to that possibility?
In other words, this isn't a criminal justice failure with the protesters. It's a socioeconomic issue that affects tens of millions of people. The Establishment doesn't want to open the can of worms for obvious reasons, why do you back The Elite so much in this scenario?
I don't back the elite. The elite don't have a monopoly on law and order. Law and order is law and order. If the elite can get away with having power through creating chaos, they do.
To be honest, I'm actually more of a neutral cat than I am a "law and order" cat... but we're falling so far away from any form of structure and I know where this leads societies... I'd rather live in a relatively peaceful nation than one that resembles Venezuela.
TBH, I think one of the biggest structural problems we're lacking is discipline. Sometimes harsh, sometimes loving, but discipline in general. We've all been coddled for so long, a wood splinter will ruin someone's day. (And we tolerate people using their intense emotions as excuses for not getting done what needs to be done.)
This isn't to say people aren't in pain, but it's not like their lives are harder than those that lived in decades prior. We do WAY less work now as a whole.... IN PARTICULAR THOSE PROTESTING AND RIOTING, who seemingly don't have lives to be able to occupy Portland for 71 days. Maybe they really just need lives, man. A hobby, a job, a reason to live that cuts through their nihilistic attitude that makes it all want to burn.
The dismantling of the family unit is fucking with us, too. I've never seen one generation disrespect their parents and grandparents so much.
The Elite make the laws because they own the lawmakers, they also fund the police (order). So yes, they completely control the laws and the order. "Law and order is the law and order" what does that even mean?
Who is lacking discipline and how so? Until this pandemic hit, our unemployment rate was at a 60 year low.
Maybe the protesters need less debt, higher wages, affordable health care, affordable housing and hope for a future. You seem to think they need lives, how about better lives?
I fail to see how the family unit has anything to do with this mess? You keep blaming the people for their frustration with the current system, we can quantify why they're frustrated economically. So keep blaming people who do have good reason to be frustrated and see what happens.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 4 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26880325 - 08/14/20 03:26 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Antifa wear black specifically so they can commit crime and slip back into anonymity. I'm pretty sure there's some law that could infer everyone close that is wearing black is an accomplice to the crime. And if there isn't, there ought to be.
More batshit crazy shit from vahn
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|