|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26879825 - 08/14/20 09:43 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
In 2009, O'Keefe paved the way for the destruction of ACORN — a collection of community-based organizations that helped register low-income voters — by deceptively editing footage to make it look like one of its chapters was willing to help a pimp (played by O'Keefe) smuggle young girls into the United States as prostitutes.
In 2010 he was caught attempting to tamper with the phone lines of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., by impersonating a telephone repairmen.
That same year, they tried to trick CNN Correspondent Abbie Boudreau into going on a boat filled with adult devices and then record her.
By 2014, O'Keefe was caught releasing deceptively edited audio footage about Josh Fox, the director of the anti-oil documentary "Gasland." O'Keefe tried to depict Fox as being interested in accepting money from a shady company, even though Fox released undoctored footage proving that O'Keefe had cut Fox turning them down.
He was also caught in attempts to trap the Hillary Clinton campaign, billionaire George Soros' nonprofit Open Society Foundations, the League of Conservation Voters and the Michigan affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.
In 2017, there was the attempt to provide false accusations of sexual assault by Roy Moore to the Washington Post.
In 2018,O'Keefe was revealed to have provided edited footage for the trial of all those arrested while protesting at Trumps inauguration.
I'm sure I'm missing some examples of the lies behind the ironically named Project Veritas.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,835
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26879864 - 08/14/20 10:06 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
PQuote:
Vahn421 said: The point of Project Veritas is to infiltrate and expose and let people just talk and then show the world what they say.
No, the point of Project Veritas is to advocate conservative viewpoints.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 hour, 30 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26879868 - 08/14/20 10:09 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26879893 - 08/14/20 10:20 AM (3 years, 6 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.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 hour, 30 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26879929 - 08/14/20 10:37 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
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?
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,473
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 3 hours, 34 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26879977 - 08/14/20 11:17 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
“Guys, is breaking the law justified ever?”
-posted on illicit drug message board
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26879999 - 08/14/20 11:33 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: In 2009, O'Keefe paved the way for the destruction of ACORN — a collection of community-based organizations that helped register low-income voters — by deceptively editing footage to make it look like one of its chapters was willing to help a pimp (played by O'Keefe) smuggle young girls into the United States as prostitutes.
In 2010 he was caught attempting to tamper with the phone lines of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., by impersonating a telephone repairmen.
That same year, they tried to trick CNN Correspondent Abbie Boudreau into going on a boat filled with adult devices and then record her.
By 2014, O'Keefe was caught releasing deceptively edited audio footage about Josh Fox, the director of the anti-oil documentary "Gasland." O'Keefe tried to depict Fox as being interested in accepting money from a shady company, even though Fox released undoctored footage proving that O'Keefe had cut Fox turning them down.
He was also caught in attempts to trap the Hillary Clinton campaign, billionaire George Soros' nonprofit Open Society Foundations, the League of Conservation Voters and the Michigan affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.
In 2017, there was the attempt to provide false accusations of sexual assault by Roy Moore to the Washington Post.
In 2018,O'Keefe was revealed to have provided edited footage for the trial of all those arrested while protesting at Trumps inauguration.
I'm sure I'm missing some examples of the lies behind the ironically named Project Veritas.
Well, you just sent me down a rabbit hole. HAHA.
Let's start with the Acorn one, as it seems to be his claim to fame. (Also, I had no idea who O'Keefe was until now. I just watched the videos and let them speak for themselves.)
First of all, Acorn was a far-leftist partisan organization that was tax-funded. I'm not a fan of politically motivated, partisan government-paid programs, so I'm not sad it crashed at all. I'd say the same thing about a far right-wing government program as well, but the far-right doesn't believe in government programs. 
Now a question, how can one "make it look like" one of their chapters were willing to help smuggle underage girls onto the scene when they were literally, WILLING to do it? I mean have you watched the actual video that damned them in the first place? What deceptive editing is done to this particular one? I see two women smiling and being willing to help keep a secret. After the video went viral, they were fired. You could say their willingness to traffic underage girls in and look the other way is what damned Acorn, not O'Keefe.
Having said that, let's talk about your article. Here is the second video, and the one tied to your article. This guy seems way less willing, I actually agree. This footage should not have been used to make the point. In fact, *unlike* the other videos I've seen from project Veritas, including the other Acorn Video of the two black women, I find this one to be bland and lacking in any sort of damning conviction. This kind of footage DOES look heavily edited and this guy didn't look cooperative. He should not have been fired, but it likely happened for P.R. reasons. He was right to sue and I'm glad he won his money, because he deserves it. And from his perspective, if he thought he was dealing with a real pimp, good for him for calling the police which is what the others did NOT do.
So regarding O'Keefe's character itself, you got me. You shouldn't have to exaggerate to make your point. While the first video is fucking great and incredibly damning, the second is piss poor footage that does seem heavily edited. O'Keefe was likely right about Acorn and quite wrong about how he went about it.
So yeah, the video that actually fucked Acorn over was likely those two black women. I also found this one. and this one. Also very damning. These women seem trained to know this stuff. Furtheremore, the FBI themselves seems to have had to investigate and arrest members of Acorn guilty of fraud.
This article is good, too.
"Attempts of minimize and marginalize the accusations made in the report with distracting references to “right-wing attacks” succeed only in clarifying the extent of the frauds committed. Nearly 70 ACORN employees have been convicted in 12 states for voter registration fraud, which resulted in “one-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 [to be] invalid.”
Acorn doesn't sound benevolent and noble, either. It sounds like they needed to be exposed as an organization. I just don't think it was smart or moral for O'Keefe to throw individuals under the bus that clearly weren't into the conversation. Most seemed to be, though a few were not.
Anyway, I prefer to take videos on a case-by-case basis. There was enough damning evidence against Acorn between the GOOD videos and the fraud they have committed, O'Keefe should have left it at that and I condemn him for not.
Having said that, I'm sure your other example are similar, but I'll have to get back to them later and do a shorter summary than this one.
A final thought for now: A video's creator is not nearly as important as the content of the video, and each video must be taken case-by-case.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 11:52 AM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26880009 - 08/14/20 11:40 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
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.
--------------------
|
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]
#26880024 - 08/14/20 11:57 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: A member of Antifa can't see the harm Antifa is doing in the same way a Christian can't see the harm Christians are doing.
This isn't to say that they aren't reasonable people when you get them individually, but we're far closer again to, "she's a witch, burn her!" Then people fuckin' realize. All it takes is a mob and something or someone new to be angry about when the suffering gets bad enough. Group think is a plague, and in the case of Antifa which has a very loose structure of organization, very powerful people with excellent skills of manipulation likely infiltrated in the beginning. People with power want control and the far left and far right are the easiest group to psychologically fuck with right now.
Antifa is made up of mostly pawns who have found a way to circle jerk their egos pretending to be heroes while their LARP fucks with the rest of us. It's not cool.
You say antifa are the ones screaming witch, yet you have argued that anyone wearing black in the vicinity of rioters should be arrested upon suspicion of complicity.
You're basically saying "they must be antifa! Get em!"
McCarthyism alive and well
This is a twisting of my actual position.
Do you care to know the truth of it or do you just like being smug and feeling like you won even though you've misrepresented me?
Twisting of your position? It's your exact words!
You are engaged in a form od McCarthyism, that's a fact. No one is twisting your position dude
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880029 - 08/14/20 12:00 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: A member of Antifa can't see the harm Antifa is doing in the same way a Christian can't see the harm Christians are doing.
This isn't to say that they aren't reasonable people when you get them individually, but we're far closer again to, "she's a witch, burn her!" Then people fuckin' realize. All it takes is a mob and something or someone new to be angry about when the suffering gets bad enough. Group think is a plague, and in the case of Antifa which has a very loose structure of organization, very powerful people with excellent skills of manipulation likely infiltrated in the beginning. People with power want control and the far left and far right are the easiest group to psychologically fuck with right now.
Antifa is made up of mostly pawns who have found a way to circle jerk their egos pretending to be heroes while their LARP fucks with the rest of us. It's not cool.
You say antifa are the ones screaming witch, yet you have argued that anyone wearing black in the vicinity of rioters should be arrested upon suspicion of complicity.
You're basically saying "they must be antifa! Get em!"
McCarthyism alive and well
This is a twisting of my actual position.
Do you care to know the truth of it or do you just like being smug and feeling like you won even though you've misrepresented me?
Twisting of your position? It's your exact words!
You are engaged in a form od McCarthyism, that's a fact. No one is twisting your position dude
"Exact" words? That's an interesting take on the word, "exact."
(And to be clear, I HAVE made a similar case, but you're exaggerating and twisting it.)
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 12:01 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] 1
#26880050 - 08/14/20 12:12 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
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. However,
Another post where you are just casually talking about violating people’s rights. You can’t arrest someone because they are wearing black or might be a potential accomplice. There is no precrime enforcement.
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.
So this isnt you advocating for arresting people in black on suspicion of complicity? This is one of literally 10 examples I could have picked.
This too
Quote:
When everyone wears all black for the sake of their "anonymity" they're ASKING to be detained
Did you not just say antifa is screaming witch? Seems to me like you are having trouble keeping up with your own positions.
--------------------
|
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]
#26880053 - 08/14/20 12:14 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Similar position 
Get outta here dude the quote above makes it very clear that my statement was IN NO WAY twisting your words
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880107 - 08/14/20 12:54 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Similar position 
Get outta here dude the quote above makes it very clear that my statement was IN NO WAY twisting your words
Detainment is not the same as being arrested.
Second of all, my position with this in particular lies in the fact that Antifa specifically wears black and runs in groups so they CAN break laws without being identified. It's not just because I disagree with their ideals morally, it's because they've created a specific tactic to avoid being detained, or more, in the first place.
My interest in detaining people that dress fully in black and wear completely black masks lies in the *specific* fact that they choose their wardrobe in order to NOT be identified. One has to combat that, somehow. The general idea that I think standing next to someone else who commits a crime makes you guilty is ludicrous. (Fuck McCarthyism.) My ideas specifically apply to a group of people who intentionally work with anonymity to commit crime through a specific wardrobe choice. Everyone else is exempt. And we're not talking full arrests. (EDIT: If possible.) We're talking if someone commits a crime and everyone scatters, having to develop a new tactic to combat it.
There's a reason the black ski mask is so popular among criminals. Anonymity is key.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 01:01 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] 2
#26880122 - 08/14/20 01:04 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Look dude you can come in here and try to clean up your deplorable position (innefectively) but your original comment stands.
You specifically called for cops profiling people in black on suspicion of committing a crime. If that isnt crying witch and participating in McCarthyism, I dont know what is.
McCarthyism is accusing people of being communists. You're here accusing people in black of being part of a far left political organization by proximity.
Ya I stick by McCarthyism being the right word
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26880132 - 08/14/20 01:16 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Make believe is saying something that happened is true without evidence, while Vahn's OP was primarily his prediction of a future state run by antifa, with a lot of question marks thrown in and him being clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion.
I had a few minutes and decided to check out your claim regarding "with a lot of question marks thrown in":
Quote:
Vahn421 said: "Terrorism (Noun):
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. Terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."
Let's focus on #1 and #3.
We essentially have two opposing forces and MOST of America is going to agree that at least one of these two organizations, (if not both), are terrorists: Antifa/Rioters and Police/Government.
So, who are the real terrorists? Or are they ALL terrorists? I lean toward all of them, but I'll take the boys in blue over any other group.
Hypothetically, the result of Antifa having all the power right now would mean an immediate return to a caste system with black people at the very top and white people at the very bottom. The sins of the fathers would be heaped on the heads of the sons and we'd likely see executions in the street. We'd look like Venezuela in 6 months. That power is unbridled, unchecked, and ironically completely fascist and racist. (All the things they claim to hate.)
This is, hypothetically of course, assuming China doesn't nut so hard over far leftists after they finish sucking its dick that it claims us as their own.
Cops and government fuck up, but no cops just means drug lords rise as the terrorist/boss of any given territory anyway, and I promise you they aint as civil as cops.
There isn't a single question mark in that entire hypothetical.
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.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26880169 - 08/14/20 01:36 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Look dude you can come in here and try to clean up your deplorable position (innefectively) but your original comment stands.
You specifically called for cops profiling people in black on suspicion of committing a crime. If that isnt crying witch and participating in McCarthyism, I dont know what is.
McCarthyism is accusing people of being communists. You're here accusing people in black of being part of a far left political organization by proximity.
Ya I stick by McCarthyism being the right word
I'm not trying to "clean up" anything. I'm trying to give more context so I'm not misrepresented. You make it sound like I want people arrested left and right when all I'm saying is that if you intentionally pick a wardrobe to blend in with everyone else committing crime, sooner or later something is going to be done about it.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26880171 - 08/14/20 01:38 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Make believe is saying something that happened is true without evidence, while Vahn's OP was primarily his prediction of a future state run by antifa, with a lot of question marks thrown in and him being clear he was expressing his personal opinion for discussion.
I had a few minutes and decided to check out your claim regarding "with a lot of question marks thrown in":
Quote:
Vahn421 said: "Terrorism (Noun):
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. Terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."
Let's focus on #1 and #3.
We essentially have two opposing forces and MOST of America is going to agree that at least one of these two organizations, (if not both), are terrorists: Antifa/Rioters and Police/Government.
So, who are the real terrorists? Or are they ALL terrorists? I lean toward all of them, but I'll take the boys in blue over any other group.
Hypothetically, the result of Antifa having all the power right now would mean an immediate return to a caste system with black people at the very top and white people at the very bottom. The sins of the fathers would be heaped on the heads of the sons and we'd likely see executions in the street. We'd look like Venezuela in 6 months. That power is unbridled, unchecked, and ironically completely fascist and racist. (All the things they claim to hate.)
This is, hypothetically of course, assuming China doesn't nut so hard over far leftists after they finish sucking its dick that it claims us as their own.
Cops and government fuck up, but no cops just means drug lords rise as the terrorist/boss of any given territory anyway, and I promise you they aint as civil as cops.
There isn't a single question mark in that entire hypothetical.
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.
Of course it's an opinion. One I'm strongly convinced of, naturally. Not everyone uses words so textbook like that, Shiva... and you're going to misinterpret a lot of people's ideas if you assume that every word that comes out of their mouth is the most optimal word they should be using relative to dictionary definitions. Sometimes it's just colloquial, sometimes it's just not quite the right word.
Falcon is not wrong. He's rather astute at seeing what someone is TRYING to say even if they don't lay it out in textbook definition. Are you going to keep this nonsensical argument up when I'm right here saying it my self? I have strong opinions, but even I know they are opinions.
Edited by Vahn421 (08/14/20 01:46 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]
#26880184 - 08/14/20 01:44 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
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?
Wearing black isnt against the law dude even if you were doing it for the sake of anonymity.
Again, my original comment stands. Keep shouting witch and participating in McCarthyism.
As for shivas comment, hypothetically means you have a hypothesis, which is a plausible scenario based on observation and evidence. You didnt present it as an opinion, you presented it as an inevitability if "antifa" comes to power.
You didnt say "the sins of the fathers may be heaped on the heads of the sons"
You said they would be. I agree with this being make believe
--------------------
|
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] 3
#26880193 - 08/14/20 01:49 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
When it comes to vahn, fal always understands what he's trying to say.
But with anybody else, 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"
This is exactly the reason people are coming down on fal right now. You just recently started posting here again. You dont know the kind of poster fal has historically been.
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.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26880194 - 08/14/20 01:50 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I presented an opinion based on a hypothetical. Gawd, stop trying to tell me what I think or what I mean when I'm telling you myself.
--------------------
|
|