Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Ok, there is no doubt more to this than is being published here, but it's still way out of line. Hard to think of anything which could justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30...ck-people.html

A lieutenant from a police department in Georgia is under investigation after a dash-cam video obtained by Channel 2 Action News appears to show the officer telling a driver during a DUI stop, “Remember, we only kill black people.”

Lt. Greg Abbott of the Cobb County Police Department reportedly asked the driver to grab her cell phone, but she replied she’s afraid to move her hands because she has “just seen way too many videos of cops … ”

Abbott responds, “But, you’re not black. Remember, we only shoot black people. We only kill black people, right? All the videos you’ve seen, have you seen the black people get killed?”

[Falcon Horus]

So, suppose you go to an event, and the opposition begins physically attacking you. You're not going to defend yourself? Just stand there and let him / her carry out his attack upon you?

You could say "I will wait for the authorities to defend me", but suppose, like last weekend, the police were ordered to stand down and let Antifa do what they wanted?

Your hide is your own responsibility, and if needed, it is your responsibility to defend it.

IF(*) I attend a march, I would refrain from provoking any counter-protester. If the counter-protester is provoked simply by me being present at the a march on a subject they do not agree with, they would be committing a crime by assaulting me. However, in such a case, I have but one option: run the other way, get the hell out of dodge and take cover, get to safety.

I will not use violence to make my point -- there's no point. Violence never solved anything.

My hide is my responsibility indeed, and my defence is not to attack with yet more violence.

I wouldn't call myself a pacifist, but when it comes to a situation in which someone threatens me (and that has happened), a violent response only causes more violence in reply.

(*) Likelihood of me attending anything that has large crowds are zero to none. Too many stimulants to process will turn my autistic/ADD brain into panic-mode, and that ain't pretty.

Didn't you get the memo?

When violence comes from the left against those they disagree with, it's ok.

The classic right snowflake excuse.

Ok, there is no doubt more to this than is being published here, but it's still way out of line. Hard to think of anything which could justify it.

That's not way out of line. That's serious misconduct and should result in immediate termination.

****

Note about the climate change stuff -- I will reply to these posts but I have a deadline to make so gonna do that first, then come back to what will probably be a long post.

[Annoyed]

Quote Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Didn't you get the memo?

When violence comes from the left against those they disagree with, it's ok.

The classic right snowflake excuse.

Ok, let's clarify.

My position is that violence by either side, protesters, counter-protestors or even fence sitters who can't decide what they want to be when they grow up is completely unacceptable under any circumstances aside from self-defense; defending one's self from immediate physical attack and should be prosecuted under the applicable laws.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?

[mad_gater]

I think the problem is that you are confusing long term human cause for sole human impact. The science doesn't claim sole human impact, just that humans do in fact play A role over the long term. Volcanoes are indeed dangerous for the environment...but that doesn't mean we should go ahead and throw kerosene into the fire, does it now? It also matters the specific contaminants being introduced into the atmosphere and environment, and the deforestation of the planet. Europe used to be mostly forest, then at one point in the past almost became forest free until monarchs started to notice it and instilled strong rules to preserve trees, for pragmatic reasons considering their value as a resource. Removing trees also impacts the environment, plowing pavement over grass, destroying rain forest, all of that reduces the biosphere's ability to convert CO2 into O2. And that's just one example. Add up all the other things done, since the beginnings of the first industrial revolution...and it does make a difference.

Look....I'm not saying we shouldn't work to keep our water, air, land, etc. clean. Not even any need to argue that from a sustainability standpoint...an argument for clean water, food, etc. can also be made form a public health interest standpoint. I do however disagree with the notion of institutiing even more draconian government rules and regs towards that end (such as letting the government tell us which light bulb to buy or which cleaning product to use, etc.).

But government control seems ot be what many of the enviros seem to be clamoring for, and there is a rather unfortunate tendency of a fair percentage of the enviros to look at human beings as the sole source and summit of all our woes in the area when there are other factors in the environment that can cause drastic environmental changes. Volcanoes are one of them. That gigantic thermonuclear reactor known as the sun is another one. All that polar air that occasionally breaks free of the polar vortex and can spill as far south as Florida sometimes is another.

Simply put...if human beings were to suddenly become completely and utterly extinct like some of these enviros seem to want, the Earth and its environment would still undergo changes, as nature itself is a naturally dynamic and uncontrollable force. It is fundamentally impossible to control the uncontrollable.

[Gatefan1976]

And you're using the same arguments as the Nazis themselves...

Didn't you get the memo?

When violence comes from the left against those they disagree with, it's ok.

At what point do you get concerned?
Trump has pardoned Arpaio, like Hitler pardoned the Potempa killers.
Wait for a equivalent for the Reichstag fire so we can declare a clear "other" to threaten "our" way of life by suspending civil liberties?
Wait till Trump comes up with his own Lex van der Lubbe laws so we can execute the other?
Krystallnacht for those deemed "the other"?

[mad_gater]

At what point do you get concerned?
Trump has pardoned Arpaio, like Hitler pardoned the Potempa killers.
Wait for a equivalent for the Reichstag fire so we can declare a clear "other" to threaten "our" way of life by suspending civil liberties?
Wait till Trump comes up with his own Lex van der Lubbe laws so we can execute the other?
Krystallnacht for those deemed "the other"?

That presumes you have any irrefutable proof that Sherriff Arpaio is or was, in any way, shape, or form acting or has acted in like manner as a Potempa killer.

[Annoyed]

At what point do you get concerned?
Trump has pardoned Arpaio, like Hitler pardoned the Potempa killers.
Wait for a equivalent for the Reichstag fire so we can declare a clear "other" to threaten "our" way of life by suspending civil liberties?
Wait till Trump comes up with his own Lex van der Lubbe laws so we can execute the other?
Krystallnacht for those deemed "the other"?

Ok, take the deflector shields down. Nice attempt to deflect, though.

We aren't or I wasn't talking about Trump, I was talking about the apparent belief of many of those on the left that it's perfectly fine for them to use violence to disrupt gatherings and events which they oppose, while at the same time they complain about violence perpetrated upon lefties by those on the right.

Same question I put to FH:

My position is that violence by either side, protesters, counter-protestors or even fence sitters who can't decide what they want to be when they grow up is completely unacceptable under any circumstances aside from self-defense; defending one's self from immediate physical attack and should be prosecuted under the applicable laws.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?

[Annoyed]

Look....I'm not saying we shouldn't work to keep our water, air, land, etc. clean. Not even any need to argue that from a sustainability standpoint...an argument for clean water, food, etc. can also be made form a public health interest standpoint. I do however disagree with the notion of institutiing even more draconian government rules and regs towards that end (such as letting the government tell us which light bulb to buy or which cleaning product to use, etc.).

But government control seems ot be what many of the enviros seem to be clamoring for, and there is a rather unfortunate tendency of a fair percentage of the enviros to look at human beings as the sole source and summit of all our woes in the area when there are other factors in the environment that can cause drastic environmental changes. Volcanoes are one of them. That gigantic thermonuclear reactor known as the sun is another one. All that polar air that occasionally breaks free of the polar vortex and can spill as far south as Florida sometimes is another.

Simply put...if human beings were to suddenly become completely and utterly extinct like some of these enviros seem to want, the Earth and its environment would still undergo changes, as nature itself is a naturally dynamic and uncontrollable force. It is fundamentally impossible to control the uncontrollable.

But they can't tax or otherwise make nature pay them, while they can try to make the US and its people pay.

[sarc]Clearly, it all has to be caused by us. [/sarc]

[Gatefan1976]

That presumes you have any irrefutable proof that Sherriff Arpaio is or was, in any way, shape, or form acting or has acted in like manner as a Potempa killer.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...io-immigration

Sorry, he was worse.

[garhkal]

Ok, there is no doubt more to this than is being published here, but it's still way out of line. Hard to think of anything which could justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30...ck-people.html

I hope to hell that cops gets severly smacked for that stupidity..

A few months UNPAID suspension should be good..

IF(*) I attend a march, I would refrain from provoking any counter-protester. If the counter-protester is provoked simply by me being present at the a march on a subject they do not agree with, they would be committing a crime by assaulting me. However, in such a case, I have but one option: run the other way, get the hell out of dodge and take cover, get to safety.

You have seen all the violence against trump supporters, JUST for being there, whether that guy that got drug out of his car and stomped on in Chicago, just after the election, to those 4 guys down in New orleans on holiday, one wearing a "trump" teashirt, and they got beaten JUST for the fact they were trump fans. NONE OF THEM did anything to do it.. Same with LOTS of those who got assaulted time and time again in Ca, or at Trump rally's. YES it was a crime from the antifa thugs, but HOW MANY Have you seen be arrested? Charged?

FEW IF ANY.

And there are plenty of videos showing people TRYING TO run away to get out of dodge, but STILL getting overran and beaten down.. So running's not really an option.. ITs either just stand there and get your ass beaten, or FIGHT BACK...

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, there is no doubt more to this than is being published here, but it's still way out of line. Hard to think of anything which could justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30...ck-people.html

I'm sure you will think of something

[aretood2]

Ok, there is no doubt more to this than is being published here, but it's still way out of line. Hard to think of anything which could justify it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30...ck-people.html

Interestingly enough, I have to back up the officer here based on what info was provided in the article. I can see how it would ruffle some feathers to say what he said, but I can see exactly why he choose to say it. As far as I am concerned, he won't do it again, move on. Unless there is other information that we don't know?

That's not way out of line. That's serious misconduct and should result in immediate termination.

Was it though? You pull over someone and they are seriously nervous and afraid because of what they reprieve you to be, a very real and apparent threat to your life...you being a police officer. That was an attempt to use humor, was it good? It was hyperbole, an attempt to disarm. But how is this something worth firing an officer trying to keep someone from going hysterical? I just don't see how this is a serious thing.

Look....I'm not saying we shouldn't work to keep our water, air, land, etc. clean. Not even any need to argue that from a sustainability standpoint...an argument for clean water, food, etc. can also be made form a public health interest standpoint. I do however disagree with the notion of institutiing even more draconian government rules and regs towards that end (such as letting the government tell us which light bulb to buy or which cleaning product to use, etc.).

But government control seems ot be what many of the enviros seem to be clamoring for, and there is a rather unfortunate tendency of a fair percentage of the enviros to look at human beings as the sole source and summit of all our woes in the area when there are other factors in the environment that can cause drastic environmental changes. Volcanoes are one of them. That gigantic thermonuclear reactor known as the sun is another one. All that polar air that occasionally breaks free of the polar vortex and can spill as far south as Florida sometimes is another.

Simply put...if human beings were to suddenly become completely and utterly extinct like some of these enviros seem to want, the Earth and its environment would still undergo changes, as nature itself is a naturally dynamic and uncontrollable force. It is fundamentally impossible to control the uncontrollable.

Funny, deaths of humans seems to be the main cause for concern in the first place...I think you are mushing everyone into one group where there is no one unified group. The biggest concern about climate change is the conflicts that would result, the shortages of food, and economic impact...essentially, a lot of ruined lives down the road.

[Annoyed]

Interestingly enough, I have to back up the officer here based on what info was provided in the article. I can see how it would ruffle some feathers to say what he said, but I can see exactly why he choose to say it. As far as I am concerned, he won't do it again, move on. Unless there is other information that we don't know?

In the environment we have today? With the number of police shootings of unarmed blacks? I too, can think of several reasons, some possibly good ones, but in today's environment, I can't excuse this even as a joke, sarcasm, or responding "in kind" to the motorists' behavior.

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, take the deflector shields down. Nice attempt to deflect, though.

What deflection?

We aren't or I wasn't talking about Trump, I was talking about the apparent belief of many of those on the left that it's perfectly fine for them to use violence to disrupt gatherings and events which they oppose, while at the same time they complain about violence perpetrated upon lefties by those on the right.

That's because you can only see the tree in front of you, you have a habit of either avoiding, or not realising that actions create reactions. If Neo-nazi's were not emboldened by trump and his ilk, would you get something like Antifa existing?
Nope.
If cops "didn't just shoot the black ones", would you get BLM?
Nope.

Same question I put to FH:

My position is that violence by either side, protesters, counter-protestors or even fence sitters who can't decide what they want to be when they grow up is completely unacceptable under any circumstances aside from self-defense; defending one's self from immediate physical attack and should be prosecuted under the applicable laws.

Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?

I agree with the sentiment of the statement, I do not agree with how you are using it to justify -anyone- going armed. Look back a few pages and see how you have said you would go armed for "self protection", then decried the "other side" for doing it as well. Also, lets be clear here, the leftie thugs -are- bringing shields and bats, yes -and they should not-, the rightie thugs are bringing shields, bats, pepper spray and guns and they -certainly- should not. All this is, is the attempt at false equivalency to justify escalation. -That's- why trump got slammed for his "violence on both sides" and "good people on both sides" BS.

[Annoyed]

What deflection?

That's because you can only see the tree in front of you, you have a habit of either avoiding, or not realising that actions create reactions. If Neo-nazi's were not emboldened by trump and his ilk, would you get something like Antifa existing?
Nope.
If cops "didn't just shoot the black ones", would you get BLM?
Nope.


I agree with the sentiment of the statement, I do not agree with how you are using it to justify -anyone- going armed. Look back a few pages and see how you have said you would go armed for "self protection", then decried the "other side" for doing it as well. Also, lets be clear here, the leftie thugs -are- bringing shields and bats, yes -and they should not-, the rightie thugs are bringing shields, bats, pepper spray and guns and they -certainly- should not. All this is, is the attempt at false equivalency to justify escalation. -That's- why trump got slammed for his "violence on both sides" and "good people on both sides" BS.

Excuse me? So in your mind, the leftie thug has more of a right to arm themselves than the rightie thug?

Sorry, but neither side has more of a right to attack or less of a right to defend themselves. Neither side should be attacking. It is no more wrong for either side. They are both equally wrong.