*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No reasonable person thinks being shoved to the ground necessitates a threat to your life. If the guy was gonna kill you he wouldnt stop after he shoved you and just stand there. He'd be on top of you banging your head off the ground.

Either that or he'd just pull his own gun and shoot you in cold blood in the first place.

---

This. Mostly.

It's absurd to posit that every murderer will act in the same way. We can't know the intent of the pusher.
However, the body language indicates what you've asserted. He wasn't continuing to attack after the initial push. His hands were at his sides.
He backed away when the gun was drawn. (I don't see the gun in the video, but knowing that the guy was shot makes it fairly clear when the gun was pulled.)



FFS, it's a war crime to shoot someone whom is not an "active combatant." Shooting someone fleeing a field of battle is a war crime.
The reality on the ground may never pan out like that. I'm not saying it does.
I'm saying that if the laws we hold as humans offer more right to life to a true enemy of our country than to our citizens in a parking lot, then things are fucking wrong.

Fuck your SYG laws, Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

not just in my mind's eye.....that's exactly what's on the video! The video does not show skin colors.

---

I'll give you a hint- the one with very dark skin and kinky hair is a black man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HieeP6lwvg

If you think that video definitively shows race...you're out of your mind.

This is what I think is happening to you

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...6&h=667&crop=1

There are no red pixels in that picture. Your mind just sees strawberries and *wants* to see red. Just like when you see someone get shot, you *want* him to be black. Racist.

What's up with that guy in the blue shirt in the video?

"ooh look a fight.....oh shit that's a gun"

He was so cool about it. Just changed direction and walked. I'd be sprinting for my life, but this guy was like "nahh, i'll just crouch over here and see how this plays out"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you think that video definitively shows race...you're out of your mind.

This is what I think is happening to you

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...6&h=667&crop=1

There are no red pixels in that picture. Your mind just sees strawberries and *wants* to see red. Just like when you see someone get shot, you *want* him to be black. Racist.

---

More like your brain sees a black man and thinks 'gorilla' because you are racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

More like your brain sees a black man and thinks 'gorilla' because you are racist.

---

No, when I see a thick-bodied primate charging and flailing violently without provocation, I think "gorilla" because I've seen actual gorillas before and that's what they do.

https://youtu.be/TWWGMy1NhVg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Good job not being a racist there.

---

It didn't even occur to me that "gorilla" can be seen as racist, until you mentioned it.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... it's you who seems to have an obsession with skin colour. Here, you're basically suggesting there's a list of insults that are acceptable to be directed at white people, but not black people, of which "gorilla" is one of. That is racism, not insulting someone who happens to be black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It didn't even occur to me that "gorilla" can be seen as racist, until you mentioned it.

---

It didn't occur to me either, even though I did know of the connection. It's just not something I'm sensitive to because I live in a state with like six black people and this doesn't come up very often.

Quote:

---

Here, you're basically suggesting there's a list of insults that are acceptable to be directed at white people, but not black people.

---

It's not just him

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/polit...cks/index.html

Calling Steve Bannon a dog = Fine
Calling Omarosa a dog for the exact same reason in the exact same context = racism.

Quote:

---

Give it up.

---

What, pointing out your hypocrisy? You cry sexism while promoting sexism. You cry racism while promoting racism. No, sorry, I won't give it up. Instead you should try to understand why your comments come across as hypocritical.

Quote:

---

No reasonable person thinks being shoved to the ground necessitates a threat to your life.

---

I wouldn't, but I don't live in a country where the guy who just shoved me to the ground might have a gun.

Quote:

---

You obviously missed banana's expert analysis whereby you're not a proper CCW owner if you treat pulling your gun, aiming it, and shooting to kill someone as three separate decisions. Once you decide to pull your gun you have to kill them, that's the rule.

---

I get banana's point that brandishing a gun should not be done simply for the sake of brandishing it. However, this doesn't mean that once a gun is brandished, it has to be fired. That said, the decision to fire may well have been made at exactly the same time as the decision to brandish. That I think is reckless, but is it illegal? I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Calling Steve Bannon a dog = Fine
Calling Omarosa a dog for the exact same reason in the exact same context = racism.

---

I have no idea how "dog" can even be argued as racist. Rottweiler? Sure, but vague "dog"? That's as racially offensive as "fucking moronic idiot".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What, pointing out your hypocrisy? You cry sexism while promoting sexism. You cry racism while promoting racism. No, sorry, I won't give it up. Instead you should try to understand why your comments come across as hypocritical.

---

Only because you assume I'm a feminist (which I'm not). And I don't know what you're talking about racism for, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I wouldn't, but I don't live in a country where the guy who just shoved me to the ground might have a gun.

---

Get the fuck out. As if being shoved to the ground and then standing there in America is a threat to your life, like it's such a big cultural divide that it means something different there than here. Try being less of a disingenuous retard sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I get banana's point that brandishing a gun should not be done simply for the sake of brandishing it. However, this doesn't mean that once a gun is brandished, it has to be fired. That said, the decision to fire may well have been made at exactly the same time as the decision to brandish. That I think is reckless, but is it illegal? I don't know.

---

It's not illegal if he thinks his life is in danger. That's the whole point of the discussion about why SYG is such a retarded law. Maybe if you paid attention to what the debate was about instead of trying to troll everyone by picking apart some tangential comments they make you'd learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Not what I said

---

It's a fair paraphrase, imo. It's certainly what you implied. That's why I called you out on it, because it can so easily be interpreted exactly as poop descirbed it. In fact, I'm struggling to find a different way to interpret "if you call me racist to my face, you might want to take a careful inventory of your teeth", or whatever the exact wording was.

Quote:

---

Only because you assume I'm a feminist (which I'm not). And I don't know what you're talking about racism for, sorry.

---

Because you accused banana of being racist for using a word that YOU have associated with skin colour.

Quote:

---

Get the fuck out. As if being shoved in America is a threat to your life, like it's such a big cultural divide that it means something different there than here. Try being less of a disingenuous retard sometimes.

---

I'm sorry, I have never been forcefully shoved over by a bigger guy than me for daring to argue with his gf in a nation where lots of people are armed. So no, I really cannot put myself in this guy's shoes.

Quote:

---

It's not illegal if he thinks his life is in danger.

---

Who are you to decide if his life is in danger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Because you accused banana of being racist for using a word that YOU have associated with skin colour.

---

Fuck off again please.

It's like if banana said 'that guy shoved that cracker down' and I called him out on it, you'd be calling me a hypocrite saying I was the racist for assuming he was being racist using the word 'cracker'. Fact is, everyone who isn't pretending to be a retard knows gorilla is a derogatory slang for a black person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Who are you to decide if his life is in danger?

---

Exactly my point, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm sorry, I have never been forcefully shoved over by a bigger guy than me for daring to argue with his gf in a nation where lots of people are armed. So no, I really cannot put myself in this guy's shoes.

---

You can always find an excuse to plead ignorance about something when it suits you to do so. To most people, in America, the UK, or anywhere else, getting shoved to the ground and then having the person stand there doing nothing does not mean your life is in danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Exactly my point, thanks.

---

Well if that's your point, we agree one something.

Quote:

---

Fuck off again please.

---

You really are missing the point.

Quote:

---

Fact is, everyone who isn't pretending to be a retard knows gorilla is a derogatory slang for a black person.

---

So when I call my nephew a little monkey, I'm being racist? Even though he's white? I might as well just throw the n-bomb at him.

Gorilla can be used in a racist context, of course. It can also be used perfectly aptly to describe a testosterone-fuelled brute who beats his chest instead of using rationale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So when I call my nephew a little monkey, I'm being racist? Even though he's white? I might as well just throw the n-bomb at him.

---

Another disingenuous attempt to play dumb just for the sake of getting a reaction out of someone. You really do get boring sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You can always find an excuse to plead ignorance about something when it suits you to do so. To most people, in America, the UK, or anywhere else, getting shoved to the ground and then having the person stand there doing nothing does not mean your life is in danger.

---

To most people, they haven't been put in that position and so they are not speaking from a position of experience. How can you say with certainty that you would not fear for your life in that situation? I *probably* wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Another disingenuous attempt to play dumb just for the sake of getting a reaction out of someone. You really do get boring sometimes.

---

You're either being disingenuous or stupid, I'm not sure which.

The word "gorilla" was fine in the context banana used it, ie it described a brute. You took it to mean something more. You're the one looking for racism where it doesn't exist. You're the one obsessed with skin colour and language.

Answer my question. Is it ok to call my nephew a little monkey? What if he was black?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're either being disingenuous or stupid, I'm not sure which.

The word "gorilla" was fine in the context banana used it, ie it described a brute. You took it to mean something more. You're the one looking for racism where it doesn't exist. You're the one obsessed with skin colour and language.

---

Haha, it was 'fine' for you, but if you ask 100 random black people if it is 'fine' in ANY context, i reckon >90 will say 'fuck you'.

I'd also reckon about 70/100 white people would say it's a stupid thing to say, at the very least insensitive, at the most racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Answer my question. Is it ok to call my nephew a little monkey?

---

It's between you and him really, since it's not a racial slur to call a white person a monkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What if he was black?

---

Not really, no.

https://youtu.be/gG_dA32oH44?t=2m26s

Quote:

---

Not really, no.

---

And that's why you're the one being racist. You are treating people differently based on their skin colour. I'm not, I'm treating my white nephew and hypothetical black nephew equally, since it makes no fucking difference to me what colour the little bastard's skin is.

Quote:

---

I'd also reckon about 70/100 white people would say it's a stupid thing to say, at the very least insensitive, at the most racist.

---

It can be argued as careless language given the dude is black, but honestly, I read banana's comment and it really did not occur to me at first that it can be interpreted differently to how I intially interpreted it. So it wasn't that careless.

The response was totally unjustified. You can't just go throwing the word racist around like it's a casual insult. You don't like me calling you racist for saying it's ok to call white kids monkeys but not black kids. Perhaps I'm being harsh using that word, perhaps ignorant would be better. But you are failing to see that you are treating people differently based on their skin colour, and THAT is the problem.

Did this guy act like a brute? Yes he did. So "gorilla" is an acceptable word to describe this man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're the one looking for racism where it doesn't exist. You're the one obsessed with skin colour and language.

---

You know the saying 'doth protest too much'? You should, it was written by an English guy.

This is what I think of when someone gets so defensive about being called a racist that they actually threaten someone with physical harm. In that context, when they go on to use a racial slur it's not a big leap to find that notable, especially when they then try to defend that with multiple bullshit angles about "forgetting" the race of the person involved and pretending their not able to see that a man in a video who is plainly black is actually black.

I'll save you the trouble of your next post

"Well, actually, I couldn't tell if he was black either. The light was bad, he might have just been a white person with a really dark tan, something something, why are you obsessed with skin colour, something something."

I forgot the race of the person involved when I read the gorilla comment. I was talking about SYG, and it had fuck all to do with race for me, except for the fact it's only newsworthy because it suits the racist agenda of the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And that's why you're the one being racist. You are treating people differently based on their skin colour. I'm not, I'm treating my white nephew and hypothetical black nephew equally, since it makes no fucking difference to me what colour the little bastard's skin is.

---

Pffft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It can be argued as careless language given the dude is black.

---

And that was the point of my sarcastic comment about not being racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The response was totally unjustified. You can't just go throwing the word racist around like it's a casual insult.

---

Well, first, I didn't casually call him a racist, and second, why not? He insults people all the time. If he can dish it out, he can take it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You don't like me calling you racist for saying it's ok to call white kids monkeys but not black kids.

---

I don't actually care what you call me, because calling me racist is absurd. I'm mixed race, so who am I supposed to be against?

If you think all the races should get treated the same, then great. Don't call anyone white/black/other a name that's a derogatory name for someone of their race. It's not my fault some names get associated with some races, and not others. I'm not going to pretend calling a black person a monkey is the same as calling a white person a monkey. And being aware of that fact and so thinking before you talk is not "being a racist" lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I forgot the race of the person involved when I read the gorilla comment. I was talking about SYG, and it had fuck all to do with race for me, except for the fact it's only newsworthy because it suits the racist agenda of the media.

---

This is what I mean when I say you're so predictable it's boring. The only thing about your post I got wrong was in precisely how you would try to defend banana's idiotic comment.

Quote:

---

I don't actually care what you call me, because calling me racist is absurd. I'm mixed race, so who am I supposed to be against?

---

Interesting that you think racism is a matter of being "against" a certain race. It's not. It's about treating people differently based on their race.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to pretend calling a black person a monkey is the same as calling a white person a monkey.

---

The thing is, the word "monkey" is a really, really common thing to call a child relative. Obviously I'm not black, so I don't know how common it is in black families. But "little monkey" is basically synonymous with "mischievous child" here in the UK. Meanwhile, "gorilla" is a fairly common word to describe a brute, and a very rare racial slur.

Some words can be racist and non-racist depending on the context. Gorilla and monkey are two examples. It's really not difficult to decide if the use of the word fits the non-racist definition before deciding if it's intented to be racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

This is what I mean when I say you're so predictable it's boring. The only thing about your post I got wrong was in precisely how you would try to defend banana's idiotic comment.

---

I'm defending it because 100% I did not interpret it as remotely racist and think it is unjustified for you to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Interesting that you think racism is a matter of being "against" a certain race. It's not. It's about treating people differently based on their race.

---

Sure, just like that prejudice against a certain religion that your so fond of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Some words can be racist and non-racist depending on the context. Gorilla and monkey are two examples. It's really not difficult to decide if the use of the word fits the non-racist definition before deciding if it's intented to be racist.

---

Point is, the language is rich and varied enough that if you're actually sensitive to treating everyone the same by not calling them words that are derogatory for a person of their race, you can easily find an alternative word that doesn't come across as racist.

e.g., "That brute pushed him down."

See how easy that is?

Quote:

---

I don't actually care what you call me, because calling me racist is absurd. I'm mixed race, so who am I supposed to be against?

---

This comment is actually quite absurd. I'm assuming that you think it is impossible for you to be racist? Because of your skin colour?

How are you not aware of your own absurdity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm defending it because 100% I did not interpret it as remotely racist and think it is unjustified for you to do so.

---

Maybe you're just unfamiliar with the use of the term in that sense, not being raised in N. America. So you really just don't know about it.

How many slang words to you know for Native American?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This comment is actually quite absurd. I'm assuming that you think it is impossible for you to be racist? Because of your skin colour?

How are you not aware of your own absurdity?

---

I'm fully aware of my own absurdity, thanks.

I find it easy to sympathize with other races because I can identify with two of them. So it's actually hard for me to think of 'race' as some kind of thing you either are or aren't or having any import at all.

There's probably studies out there that show that mixed-race people hold the least racist attitudes of any group; at least that's been my personal experience.

Quote:

---

Sure, just like that prejudice against a certain religion that your so fond of.

---

Oh nice, I like what you did there. You're suggesting race and religion are synonymous?

Nope. Try harder. I'm against batshitism, not skin colour or nations. Racism and anti-religious sentiment are a million miles apart. But of course, to you, anti-religious sentiment is as bad as racism. Unless it's scientology or satanism, naturally.

You up for a swarm of scientologists coming here, setting up communities and building churches? Nope? RACIST.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How many slang words to you know for Native American?

---

Is Injun offensive? That's about all I've got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is Injun offensive? That's about all I've got.

---

Yes it is. But it's a bit dated so you'd probably get away with a dirty look rather than a punch in the nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Oh nice, I like what you did there. You're suggesting race and religion are synonymous?

Nope. Try harder. I'm against batshitism, not skin colour or nations. Racism and anti-religious sentiment are a million miles apart. But of course, to you, anti-religious sentiment is as bad as racism. Unless it's scientology or satanism, naturally.

You up for a swarm of scientologists coming here, setting up communities and building churches? Nope? RACIST.

---

Never said it was racist, said it was prejudice.

And no, I don't want Sharia Law taking over. I just don't see that as a legitimate threat.

Quote:

---

And no, I don't want Sharia Law taking over. I just don't see that as a legitimate threat.

---

I do.

And let's be clear... prejudism is an irrational attitude of hostility towards a group of people. I do not believe my hosility is irrational. So, I do not see my anti-Islamic stance as prejudiced. I see Islam as a threat to our way of life. You say you don't want Sharia? Nope, neither do I. They do, and they will push for it more and more as their population grows. If you don't think that's going to happen, I'm sorry but I think you're naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Who are you to decide if his life is in danger?

---

That's the discussion, man. We all have that right.
We're all free to make up our minds about what we saw on that video, and the surrounding facts in the case that have been exposed.

We're trying to understand WTF is justice in this fucked up world we live in.
Asserting what seems right to us is the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Fuck off again please.

It's like if banana said 'that guy shoved that cracker down' and I called him out on it, you'd be calling me a hypocrite saying I was the racist for assuming he was being racist using the word 'cracker'. Fact is, everyone who isn't pretending to be a retard knows gorilla is a derogatory slang for a black person.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYITxGniww4

Ong, your broad stroke of classing all Muslims as wanting to enact Sharia law and oppress {whomever} is prejudice on the scale of racism.

I work with and have lived with Muslims and they're just people. They're not interested in oppressing others, just living their lives, and raising their families. Some of them are total jerks. Just like the other people I know.

Your irrational fear of people whom you've never met is leading you to what? Pre-oppress them? Treat them differently than you'd treat others? Argue for different rights for them than others?

There's literally nothing different between your anti-muslim rhetoric and any racist crap.
It's bigotry. Plain and simple.


Poopy's approach is just practical life in America.
After high school, 'cause I thought it was funny, I had a habit of calling my friends a "fucking monkey" if they did something dumb or silly or amusing. It was just late-teen banter where we'd take digs at each other all the time and laugh about it. No one thought anything about me calling them a monkey. My high school had < 2% minority students. Not just blacks, but all minorities. I grew up in white-land.
Then I moved into the city.
The first time I called someone a monkey, I learned a life lesson. It doesn't matter my intent. People are going to hear that a certain way. I cannot change that. I can only accept that if I say that word in that context, it's going to be perceived as racist.
So I stopped using that as a friendly dig. Life hack. Saves unwanted BS.

EDIT: Nanners lives in white-land, right? It's possible that he's never heard that calling a person a monkey (gorilla, ape, whatever) is probably going to be perceived as racist to anyone who's not white.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=g7TAAw3oQvg
3 million views, 90% upvotes on a video that grossly misuses statistics. A couple of years ago I wrote people like Shapiro and Jordan Peterson off as fringe lunatics, but somehow they're mainstream now. I guess with Trump as president nothing should surprise me, but there we go.
If you wonder where spoon/wuf/ong get their ideas from, those two and the popular TYT spinoff Majority Report will give you the answer.

Yeah those are some pretty crazy numbers.

I've been to Iran and it's actually a pretty secular country. Having spoken to people there with no reason to lie about it, 90% of the people there hate the fucking gov't and don't want Sharia Law either.

Tehran itself is notable for having fewer mosques than there are churches in a comparably sized city in the west - not enough people go.

And this guy somehow pulls a number out of his ass that 2/3 of the pop. in Iran are 'radical muslims'. Waaaat?

Also, his number for the UK, where 2/3 say there should be some form of 'legal' punishment for desecrating Mohammed - that makes them 'radical'? Tell me, if you polled Christians on whether it was ok for other people to burn crosses or other religious symbols, how many would want that "prosecuted?" I'm guessing it's a comparable number. How many "radical Christians" live in the west by that standard then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also, his number for the UK, where 2/3 say there should be some form of 'legal' punishment for desecrating Mohammed - that makes them 'radical'? Tell me, if you polled Christians on whether it was ok for other people to burn crosses or other religious symbols, how many would want that "prosecuted?" I'm guessing it's a comparable number. How many "radical Christians" live in the west by that standard then?

---

Re Bolded: Almost none.

Google "piss christ" and tell me how many casualties it caused.

Now google what happens when someone draws Mohammed.

Quote:

---

Ong, your broad stroke of classing all Muslims as wanting to enact Sharia law and oppress {whomever} is prejudice on the scale of racism.

---

Who said anything about all Muslims? If people come here to integrate, I haven't got a problem.

Quote:

---

I work with and have lived with Muslims and they're just people.

---

Sure they are. I never suggested otherwise. I said it was batshit and I am hostile to their religion. It's not like Islam is the only religion I'm hostile to. I'm also hostile towards Scientology and Satanaism.And Catholicism. The Pope can fuck off every bit as much as Mullah Abdul Mohammed, and so can any batshit Catholics who want to come to England and turn a nice historic town into a centre of bathsit.

Quote:

---

There's literally nothing different between your anti-muslim rhetoric and any racist crap.

---

I'm sorry but you're just being dumb here. Race is not a choice. Religion is.

Quote:

---

It's bigotry. Plain and simple.

---

Bigotry isn't a dirty word anymore, sorry. You guys are bigoted as fuck when it comes to Trump and his supporters, so you don't get to use that word like it's a bad thing. Yes I'm intolerant of batshit. No apologies for that. Personally, I would like to see all religion disappear. That would be evolutionary progress.

Quote:

---

Also, his number for the UK, where 2/3 say there should be some form of 'legal' punishment for desecrating Mohammed - that makes them 'radical'? Tell me, if you polled Christians on whether it was ok for other people to burn crosses or other religious symbols, how many would want that "prosecuted?" I'm guessing it's a comparable number. How many "radical Christians" live in the west by that standard then?

---

This would be a fine counter-argument if it wasn't for one thing...

Ask a Christian what punishment should be given to someone for bruning a Bible?
Now ask a Mulsim what punishment should be given for burning the Koran?

Then talk to me about radical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Who said anything about all Muslims? If people come here to integrate, I haven't got a problem.

---

Yeah... for almost the breath between sentences, you were convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Sure they are. I never suggested otherwise. I said it was batshit and I am hostile to their religion.

---

You know what Muslim means, right? One whom practices Islam.
You're claiming that everyone whom practices Islam is batshit.
Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm sorry but you're just being dumb here. Race is not a choice. Religion is.

---

Who cares? The content of your bigotry is indistinguishable, was my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Bigotry isn't a dirty word anymore, sorry.

---

Are you seriously going to make me fucking do this?
Fine.
Your baseless categorizing of someone based on characteristics you do not know they have, as individuals,
is a total jerk move.

Don't be a jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You guys are bigoted as fuck when it comes to Trump and his supporters, so you don't get to use that word like it's a bad thing. Yes I'm intolerant of batshit. No apologies for that. Personally, I would like to see all religion disappear. That would be evolutionary progress.

---

Wait, WTF?
How many guys do you think I am?
I said what about Trump? Where?
Or about his supporters? When was that?
How the fuck does one person's bigotry excuse anyone else's bigotry?

I'm kinda jealous of how high you were when you posted this.

Quote:

---

You're claiming that everyone whom practices Islam is batshit.

---

Same with Scientology and Satanism. What's the difference? A few billion people?

Quote:

---

Who cares? The content of your bigotry is indistinguishable, was my point.

---

Well, I don't see why I should be ashamed of being intolerant of peoples' choices.

Quote:

---

Your baseless categorizing of someone based on characteristics you do not know they have, as individuals,
is a total jerk move.

---

Good job I'm not doing that then. I'm judging them based on characteristics I know they have... they practise a batshit religion.

Quote:

---

Don't be a jerk.

---

We're all jerks.

Quote:

---

How the fuck does one person's bigotry excuse anyone else's bigotry?

---

There you go again, throwing the word "bigorty" around like it's dirty. I don't have to tolerate batshit religion, any more than I have to tolerate a screaming child.

mojo, do you agree that Satanists are batshit? All of them? How about Scientologists? How about cultists who mass suicide onto comets?

I have every right to think a religion is batshit.

It's actually quite amusing.

I'm hostile to a religion that treats women as inferior to men, and I'm the oppressor.

This is the world we live in.

The Satanists I've met have all been remarkably fluent in the English language. They were polite and even pretty cool. You should probably look into it, it might suit you. It's not about worshiping Satan at all, as I understand it. It's about rejecting any god-head based mode of thinking which subjugates your own personal thoughts and desires as inferior. I mean, they're people, so some of them are probably batshit.

I hear there are plenty of Scientologists living right here in the USA. I hear Tom Cruise is even one of them. He's no icon of sanity, but he's at least able to be not batshit often enough and long enough to have established a nice Hollywood career. That L. Ron guy wrote some really good sci-fi.

I don't really have any thoughts or concerns about people I've never met committing suicide. I was probably closer to suicide than I'd care to discuss at multiple times in my life over less than a comet.

All religion is bullshit, IMO. No argument there.

Where it becomes bigotry is where you use your disfavor for a religion to justify your arguments that categorically label all Muslims as supporters of Sharia, or the oppression of women, or baby raping, or whatever fear you latch onto at the moment. Not all Muslims believe the same things just like not all Christians believe the same things.

It's not your hostility toward religion that is bigotry. It's your lazy hating on people you haven't met. Not all Muslims want to oppress women. Not all Muslims want to impose Sharia on non-Muslims whom are not themselves choosing to follow those laws.

Look, you could meet 50 Muslims and hate all 50 of them. You can tell me you hate them all day and I'll never accuse you of being prejudiced. But the moment the 51st Muslim walks in and you treat them like you already know them, that's where I draw the line.

Have you even met 50 Muslims? Spoken to them and gotten to know them? Treated them with respect and seen how they treated you in return?
Maybe try that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

We're all jerks.

---

Being a jerk on accident while trying to figure life out is one thing.
Being a jerk on purpose is another.

Hating on Sharia is great. Hating on someone whom wants to impose Sharia on anyone whom doesn't want it for themselves is great.
Hating on the oppression of women is great. Hating on someone who oppresses women is great.
Hating baby rapers is great.

That's all great. Saying some bullshit like, "Those people whom want to impose Sharia on other people are Muslims, so Muslims are all bad 'cause Sharia. Never mind that the people having Sharia imposed on them against their wishes were also Muslims."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No. I'm just not deranged.


Clearly??? Where are you getting this? Why do you get to just make up your own facts. I watched the video a dozen times. I saw the guy take one step backwards after the guy was already in the process of pulling out his gun to fire. The whole thing took a split second.

You're out of your gourd if you expect a guy who was just beaten to the ground, to have the presence of mind to be able to tell if his assailant is sufficiently deterred merely by the sight of a gun...within a split second. You seem to have this retarded racist idea that gun-toting white people are all reckless hillbillies that like to indiscriminately flap a trigger finger while yelling yeeeeehaaaw.

In reality, the overwhelming massive majority of gun owners are responsible people that have been trained in gun safety protocols and understand them. If you were one of those people, you would know that a gun is not for intimidation. It's not to brandished. If you pull it out, it's because you are going to shoot somebody. If you pull the gun out, it's because you've already decided that your life is being threatened and you need to respond with force.

That all happened before the black guy ever thought about taking a step backwards. If you expect a guy who was just hit by someone twice his size, and is on the ground, and is in panicked fear for his life, to then make a hair-splitting nuanced interpretation of a single step, then you're an ignorant douchebag.

And even if he was backing away. How do we know he wasn't moving toward his car to get his own gun? If you're the one on the ground after being attacked...are you really gonna take that chance? He's attacked you...you've threatened him with a gun....now you're gonna just wait for his next move? That would be stupid. Bigtime stupid.

I'll lay 50 to 1 right now, on any wager you wanna make that this guy gets off.



Are you alright? Because you seem to be conflating me with the alt-right hate machine that likes to scream about oppression against whites.

I've never claimed that white people were a victim of anything here. Not a single word of that. Did you have a stroke? If not, then why do you think I'm making claims of anti-white racism?

My claim is that any feeling of victimization by black people is completely erroneous and that it was artificially manufactured by opportunistic activists with a profit motive. I object to that as a person of intelligence and respect for the law. My whiteness is not offended in any way.

---

In there, you say something about once you pull your gun out, you have already decided your life is in danger and you are going to shoot somebody.

There is the meat of the problem. Just because you "decided" your life is in danger doesn't mean it actually, factually and incontrovertibly is. You then proceeding to end that other person's life is not a thought not an opinion anymore, that one is the epitome of life in danger. So in danger, it does not exist anymore literally.

The other problem is that most of these gun toting bad boys are actually feeble assholes, who if you just breathe too hard in their direction might believe that their life is in danger and "pull out their weapon to shoot somebody"

I've noticed most gun nuts are, for lack of a better word, cowards. If he hits you, you are on the ground cowering in fear, can you not collect yourself for a second and call for help or call the police? So he God-forbid hits you, and that gives you the magic pass to be judge dredd?

I also like the twice the size argument. IIRC Trayvon Martín was also twice the size of George Zimmerman. Or so did many idiots claimed. Zimmerman's only recorded was to judge him for his actions and execute him on the spot. Because people fighting you for your own arguments (Zimmerman followed Martin, did he not?) deserves the death penalty nowadays.

PS: quoting on mobile FTR sucks balls

Quote:

---

Never mind that the people having Sharia imposed on them against their wishes were also Muslims."

---

Yeah, I mean it's great how when someone draws a cartoon of Allah, there will be riots across the world. But, you know, if some government imposes a religious code on the masses, well that's ok, even though it's an "imposition" that no one wants. They just can't be bothered to riot about it, oppression is not as bad as disresepct.

What is being "imposed" is religious tolerance. I WILL tolerate Islam, because if not I will be called a racist. Even though religion isn't a race. Or maybe I don't get called racist, maybe people just shift the goalposts so hating on a religion is now as bad as normal racism (but not as bad as anti-Semitism, which is obviously the worst kind of intolerance). And while we're on that subject, I do absolutely love how we have to tolerate Muslims and Jews, but Jews don't have to tolerate Muslims, and if we demand they do, we're the fucking racists.

This is the world we live in.

Quote:

---

It's not your hostility toward religion that is bigotry. It's your lazy hating on people you haven't met

---

I haven't met? Jesus, so anyone who is hostile towards Islam needs to get out there and meet 4 billion people? You assume flat earthers are stupid, right? I do. Well, by your argument, you're being a jerk by calling them stupid before meeting them to discuss their views in detail. Don't be a jerk. Assume all flat earthers are highly intelligent until proven otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

There is the meat of the problem. Just because you "decided" your life is in danger doesn't mean it actually, factually and incontrovertibly is.

---

Doesn't matter. Why is this a concern for you? Just saying "my life was in danger" is not a free pass. They still investigate. The cops still have the power to decide you're an idiot and arrest you anyway. You make it sound like it's the wild fucking west and no one has any responsibility at all. Be smarter.

Quote:

---

The other problem is that most of these gun toting bad boys are actually feeble assholes, who if you just breathe too hard in their direction might believe that their life is in danger and "pull out their weapon to shoot somebody"

---

Exactly who are you talking about? There are something like 400 milliion guns in America. We only have like 8000 murders a year.

Quote:

---

I've noticed most gun nuts are, for lack of a better word, cowards. If he hits you, you are on the ground cowering in fear, can you not collect yourself for a second and call for help or call the police? So he God-forbid hits you, and that gives you the magic pass to be judge dredd?

---

Demogoguery. Exactly what law are you citing here as the "magic pass". Can you cite what specific language in the statute that offends you?

Quote:

---

I also like the twice the size argument. IIRC Trayvon Martín was also twice the size of George Zimmerman. Or so did many idiots claimed

---

Why are they idiots?

Quote:

---

Zimmerman's only recorded was to judge him for his actions and execute him on the spot

---

Seriously bro.....go get the facts of the case, and then we can talk about this.

Quote:

---

(Zimmerman followed Martin, did he not?)

---

Not a crime.

Quote:

---

deserves the death penalty nowadays.

---

Trayvon was beating him, and the 911 call clearly shows Zimmerman screaming hysterically for "help". You make it sound like Zimmerman was supposed to take a few minutes to have a careful introspective thought process about how to handle the situation.

Testimony from the case says that Trayvon's hand touched the gun and said the words "you are going to die tonight" to zimmerman.

What exactly is your standard for a person to be in "legitimate" fear of their life?

Hating on people whom riot over nonsense is great, whether or not they're Muslims.
Asserting that every Muslim will riot over nonsense is silly.

IDK what you're on about bringing Jews into the discussion.
I assure you my personal criteria for what is prejudice do not take one's background into account, only one's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

because if not I will be called [...]

---

Not sure if that's just a life hack or if you're being childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You assume flat earthers are stupid, right?

---

No. I assume they're trolls, but none of that is relevant.

You could believe that Muslims are inferior to non-Muslims in every way. That wouldn't make you a bigot. What would make you a bigot is if you categorically treated Muslims with disrespect and/or were arguing that Muslims deserve fewer rights under the law.

Your beliefs are not what make you a jerk. It's your actions.

Quote:

---

Asserting that every Muslim will riot over nonsense is silly.

---

I didn't say that. But, based on observation, they are more likely to riot as a result of disrespecting Allah than they are to free themselves from Sharia.

Quote:

---

IDK what you're on about bringing Jews into the discussion.

---

I was drifting from the point. But, anti-Semitism is considered to be a worse kind of racism than others. Even though Judaism isn't a race either. Further, any anti-Israeli sentiment is classed as anti-Semitism, so saying they're cunts for their relentless land grabs is racist.

Of course, saying that doesn't mean I hate all Jews. But Judaism can go fuck the same ass that Islam can go fuck, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

What would make you a bigot is if you categorically treated Muslims with disrespect and/or were arguing that Muslims deserve fewer rights under the law.

---

Well it's a good job I don't. I wouldn't insult a Muslim either to his face, or knowingly online. Not for the sake of insulting him, anyway. I don't spend my time on Twitter telling Muslims to go fuck themselves.

And no, I don't feel they deserve to be treated differently under law. I believe the law should treat all incoming immigrants equally... ie, all of them have to learn English (or Welsh), have only limited access to benefits, and must have a provable clean criminal record. All of them, without prejudice, should meet this criteria, whether Muslim or Christian, male or female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But, you know, if some government imposes a religious code on the masses, well that's ok, even though it's an "imposition" that no one wants. They just can't be bothered to riot about it, oppression is not as bad as disresepct.

---

Really? What are these people doing then, having a picnic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKfVxoPO_Qc

Also, you know what happens when people protest in Iran? Some of them get shot or thrown in jail without a trial. It's not like they can just fly a baby Ayatollah balloon and not suffer any consequences.

So, calling them all hypocrites for not overthrowing their oppressive gov't is just lame. There's plenty of historical examples of a populace cowered into submission, it doesn't just happen in Muslim countries.

Good for Iran. I hope they succeed in toppling their cunts. They have more determination to free themselves from oppression than many other people around the world. They're not fleeing their country en masse. I respect the Iranian people, they want to stay and make Iran better.

Now let's talk about Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Somalia, Syria, Nigeria, Indonesia and most of North Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Now let's talk about Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Somalia, Syria, Nigeria, Indonesia and most of North Africa.

---

Sure, then we can talk about China, N Korea, most of Africa, etc. Why aren't those people revolting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sure, then we can talk about China, N Korea, most of Africa, etc. Why aren't those people revolting?

---

What's your point here? That it's not just Muslims who tolerate oppression? That it's not just Islamic nations that are oppressive? Good job there, you're right. I have contempt for most of those, too.

We have a lot of Chinese immigrants here in the UK. I have no problem whatsoever with these guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What's your point here? That it's not just Muslims who tolerate oppression? That it's not just Islamic nations that are oppressive? Good job there, you're right. I have contempt for most of those, too.

---

You seem to think it's easy to overthrow a gov't, and ergo any group of people who don't are just wimps. It's not and they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Doesn't matter. Why is this a concern for you? Just saying "my life was in danger" is not a free pass. They still investigate. The cops still have the power to decide you're an idiot and arrest you anyway.

---

And yet the victim is still shot dead. No investigation will resurrect this person

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Trayvon was beating him, and the 911 call clearly shows Zimmerman screaming hysterically for "help". You make it sound like Zimmerman was supposed to take a few minutes to have a careful introspective thought process about how to handle the situation.

Testimony from the case says that Trayvon's hand touched the gun and said the words "you are going to die tonight" to zimmerman.

What exactly is your standard for a person to be in "legitimate" fear of their life?

---

He touched whose/which gun? How did the gun get in play?

Ah, right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Demogoguery. Exactly what law are you citing here as the "magic pass". Can you cite what specific language in the statute that offends you?

---

Not citing a law, just citing the overarching thought in these situations. OMG I FEAR FOR MY LIFEZ I HAD TO KILL HIM, HE SOOO BIG

Related but unrelated anecdote: This one is a cop. "Trained' in handling of weapons and situations as his job. The vic is white. Imagine some random shmuck wanting to be an avenger or some shit getting a gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Not a crime.

---

You are looking for trouble if you randomly follow a person around, don't you?

Now, it is my argument that Zimmerman specifically followed Trayvon around BECAUSE he (Z) was carrying a gun. Without gun he wouldn't have done so.

Guns (in hands of bad actors) escalate situations immediately. I do not have to cite yet another US study on guns to demonstrate why the proliferation of guns is such a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Related but unrelated anecdote: This one is a cop. "Trained' in handling of weapons and situations as his job. The vic is white. Imagine some random shmuck wanting to be an avenger or some shit getting a gun.

---

Harrowing, but I take the cop's side in that. He was perfectly clear in his instructions and the consequences of not following them.
He did not shoot on the first couple of times the guy did not follow instructions.
At the end, it's hard to see what happened in the last second or two, but when we see the guy again, he's reaching behind himself, has crawled without his hands in the air and angled his body such that he's reaching behind himself.

If he was otherwise innocent, he totally fucked up. Either way, good shooting, cop.

That was a while back. The only thing I remember is that they got the wrong guy. He wasn't reaching behind him, he was just crawling awkwardly. What the cop is doing cannot be protocol: "Don't lower your arms for any reason! ... now crawl towards me!" what?

The woman figured it out.

The cop literally said, if you start to fall, you better fall on your face.

There are so many examples of cops clearly misjudging situations - on video. And I think those are perfectly reasonable examples why citizens should not be running around armed unless they can state a very clear reason and are properly trained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giaTWGjhTTM

My adrenaline is still pumping from the first video.
I can't watch another. Not right now.
That's some traumatizing stuff.

There's no doubt the guy made some horrendous life decisions - making sudden movements, crying "don't shoot me" - like that's going to do anything. But it should also be obvious that he's not in the right state of mind to follow the commands the moment he drops his hand quickly while having a cop point a rifle at him. I think this is handled poorly by the cop, but I don't see how you can blame him either. If he followed protocol correctly, I do think the protocol is flawed. That's a hell of a lot to keep track of in a high stress situation: keep legs crossed, keep arms in the air. Crawl, but don't move your hands past your waist line. If you lose balance... try to manage all that after a bottle of Smirnoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You seem to think it's easy to overthrow a gov't, and ergo any group of people who don't are just wimps. It's not and they're not.

---

Of course it isn't easy. When did I say it was? But, best I can tell, there's a great many Muslim people who are happy to live under Sharia. That's what this was about, not the overthrow of governments. You simply showed me what can happen if they do stand up to their government, you simply point out that it's possible.

We've seen global riots because of cartoons. There was rioting in practically every Islamic nation. A lot of people died. Because some Danish people offended Allah. All those people, expressing their outrage. But they don't stand up to their government who oppress them with Sharia law? Why? Because they don't want to. That's what makes Iran different. Their people want change, their people want to be moderate, and engage positively with the rest of the world. And that's one reason why other Islamic nations hate them so much.

Back in the 80s, Islam was a fantasy, it was magic carpets and genies in bottles. I wish I was still a naive little kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

And yet the victim is still shot dead. No investigation will resurrect this person

---

I guess we shouldn't bother investigating any murders then. Not one single murder conviction has ever resulted in the resurrection of the victim. Should we stop now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Not citing a law, just citing the overarching thought in these situations. OMG I FEAR FOR MY LIFEZ I HAD TO KILL HIM, HE SOOO BIG

---

lol, "these situations"

If I challenged you to name five of "these situations", I doubt very much you could do so without using AltaVista or Webcrawler or whatever you kids use these days. And however few you could name off the top of your head are only possible because of exactly TWO public individuals making a living though racially charged pot-stirring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

How did the gun get in play?

---

Freedom. That's how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

You are looking for trouble if you randomly follow a person around, don't you?

---

Maybe. That's not what Zimmerman was doing. He was in the neighborhood watch. And he was watching the neighborhood. Nothing random about it.

Quote:

---

Now, it is my argument that Zimmerman specifically followed Trayvon around BECAUSE he (Z) was carrying a gun. Without gun he wouldn't have done so.

---

Crazy. But even so. Assume this is true....what's your point? Guns shouldn't be allowed?

Quote:

---

Guns (in hands of bad actors) escalate situations immediately. I do not have to cite yet another US study on guns to demonstrate why the proliferation of guns is such a bad idea.

---

Stop with that. Shove all your studies up your corn hole. There's really only one study that counts. Google "CDC lives saved by guns".

the lives saved by responsible gun owners out numbers the lives taken by irresponsible gun owners by 100 to 1.

100 to 1 Jack.

ONE HUNDRED TO ONE

30,000 gun deaths per year in America (including 20,000 suicides). The CDC estimates that defensive firearm use saves upwards of THREE MILLION lives per year.

Ok....now.....what study would you like to talk about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Maybe. That's not what Zimmerman was doing. He was in the neighborhood watch. And he was watching the neighborhood. Nothing random about it.

---

Neighbourhood watch

Not neighbourhood follow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Crazy. But even so. Assume this is true....what's your point? Guns shouldn't be allowed?

---

Would have saved quite a few more lives than your BS study that comes up in a bit, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Stop with that.

---

I'll stop when the senseless killings stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Shove all your studies up your corn hole.

---

Quite classy on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

There's really only one study that counts.

---

Sadly not how science works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Google "CDC lives saved by guns".

---

Google number of gun murders in Japan per year. Then do the same, but add per capita.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

the lives saved by responsible gun owners out numbers the lives taken by irresponsible gun owners by 100 to 1.

---

Wow. I'm so impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

100 to 1 Jack.

---

I already told you I was impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

ONE HUNDRED TO ONE

---

God damn it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

30,000 gun deaths per year in America (including 20,000 suicides).

---

NUMBER OONNNNEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!111!!!111!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The CDC estimates that defensive firearm use saves upwards of THREE MILLION lives per year.

---

Damn, by that logic, adding weapons to Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Poland, Romania, The fucking UK, Germany, Belarus, Estonia, Czech Rep, Spain, motherfucking Qatar, Latvia, and more, would probably make them immortal. Do you want highlanders around?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ok....now.....what study would you like to talk about?

---

Sigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Do you want highlanders around?

---

I'm not worried....there can be only one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

lol, "these situations"

If I challenged you to name five of "these situations", I doubt very much you could do so without using AltaVista or Webcrawler or whatever you kids use these days. And however few you could name off the top of your head are only possible because of exactly TWO public individuals making a living though racially charged pot-stirring.

---

Pistorious comes to mind


Oh, and this asshole. Note how he was in mortal fear for his life because SOMEONE SHOVED HIM TO THE GROUND (BECAUSE HE WAS ARGUING WITH SOME WOMAND) AND THEN BACKED AWAY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=iDtzofAUSJI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Pistorious comes to mind

---

I don't recall Pistorious ever claiming that he was being assailed by someone larger than he is. Side note though, I think you get a little more latitude when reacting to a size disadvantage if you happen to not have legs.

Wasn't that just straight up murder anyway? Just because one time someone desperately and erroneously invoked a self-defense claim....does that mean it's no longer a legitimate claim, ever? What exactly is your point?

Also, I thought your problem was with American gun policy? Didn't this happen in some shithole African country?

What exactly are you describing when you say "these situations"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Oh, and this asshole. Note how he was in mortal fear for his life because SOMEONE SHOVED HIM TO THE GROUND (BECAUSE HE WAS ARGUING WITH SOME WOMAND) AND THEN BACKED AWAY.

---

Your timeline is missing a few key events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Neighbourhood watch

Not neighbourhood follow

---

Ridiculousness. Fuck off with this trolling. Let me know when you want to have a serious talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Your timeline is missing a few key events.

---

My timeline?

Does the video skip?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't recall Pistorious ever claiming that he was being assailed by someone larger than he is. Side note though, I think you get a little more latitude when reacting to a size disadvantage if you happen to not have legs.

Wasn't that just straight up murder anyway? Just because one time someone desperately and erroneously invoked a self-defense claim....does that mean it's no longer a legitimate claim, ever? What exactly is your point?

Also, I thought your problem was with American gun policy?

---

My problem is with gun policy in general.

Spoiler alert: I'm not American. You guys can kill each other all you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Didn't this happen in some shithole African country?

---

Yeaqh, from the "here be dragons" part of the map

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What exactly are you describing when you say "these situations"

---

People who feel "unsafe", constantly "in mortal danger", making them absolutely NEED to have a gun.

The kind who feel "naked" without a gun.

The kind who would shoot someone dead if said someone shoved him to the floor. One shove means the man's life is to be taken.

The kind who didn't get the memo that the Wild Wild West is over.

These situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ridiculousness. Fuck off with this trolling. Let me know when you want to have a serious talk.

---

So being in the neighbourhood watch gives you a license to stalk.

Ok, got ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

So being in the neighbourhood watch gives you a license to stalk.

Ok, got ya.

---

So, following this logic, if someone is following you and "you feel unsafe" and "he's so big", and you carry a gun, take it out and shoot the man and then claim self defense because it was a stranger and you felt he was following you, that's ok.

The other is ok as well. The follower follows you, sees you draw a weapon to shoot him, draws his own and shoots you too. You both shoot each other. That's ok as well.

LOL. I never knew GTA was that real

IDK the specifics, but there has to be an open grey area between due diligence of keeping an eye on someone who seems like they're up to no good and "stalking."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

So being in the neighbourhood watch gives you a license to stalk.

---

Stalking involves repeated actions, active harassment, a threat of some kind. Following someone once does not equate to stalking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Stalking involves repeated actions, active harassment, a threat of some kind. Following someone once does not equate to stalking.

---

You know what, I already know the word stalking is open to interpretation based on different cultures and different laws. Forget I mentioned it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

IDK the specifics, but there has to be an open grey area between due diligence of keeping an eye on someone who seems like they're up to no good and "stalking."

---

Dude is a neighbourhood watch, not a cop.

You see shit you don't like, lay off the pipe and call the pro's. You don't go all Magnum PI up in that motherfucker later, for obvious reasons.

But on the other hand, maybe he had so many false alarms already they would not send him any more forces or he was warned or whatever, and he had no other recourse but to take the law in his literal hands. Emboldened by the fact he was carrying, of course.

If he had no gun at the time, he'd probably be watching Dexter on Netflix at home instead and Martin would still be alive today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

If he had no gun at the time, he'd probably be watching Dexter on Netflix at home instead and Martin would still be alive today.

---

Exactly.
I think what drives most people to own and carry a firearm is the crippling fear that nothing worth telling will ever happen to them. "heroism is first and foremost a reflex of the terror of death" - Earnest Brecker. He's fun.

I don't think there's anything wrong with simply following someone, if the sole intention is to ensure that person is not breaking any laws. Just keep your distance and don't do anything that can be considered threatening. If someone feels threatened because they share a footpath with someone, perhaps they should not be out alone. You can't say that someone doesn't have the right to walk the same public route you're walking.

I dunno the deatils, if there was any harassment of any kind, but simply following someone with no illegitimate motive is not stalking, not close.

Stalking is a crime. Zimmerman was charged with many things. Stalking was not one of them. So let us know when you want to have a discussion about this based on actual facts, and actual laws.

If you want to say that Zimmerman was an emboldened cowboy who had hero fantasies that manifested in tragic circumstances. Fine. I probably agree with you. And the truth is, prosecutors could have successfully prosecuted him and debunked his self defense claim. They could have said exactly what you and I both seem to agree on....Zimmerman had a vigilante hard-on, and that made his trigger finger too sensitive.

Instead......here's what happened: The alt-left got a hold of this story and turned into a post-modern narrative of racism and implicit bias. Are you aware of how much misinformation there was in the media? Google "NBC Zimmerman 911 tape". Then tell me how you can watch NBC ever again? Radical leftists like Ben Crump, and Al Sharpton stirred up enough of a shitstorm to get Zimmerman charged with murder.

So instead of debunking the self-defense claim and convicting Zimmerman for being over-zealous vigilante dick-hole, they decided to try and convict him for being a racist hate monger who shot a sweet little boy simply for the color of his skin.

There is a compelling case for 'Criminally Negligent Homicide'. Instead the prosecution became possessed by ideological pathology and charged Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman was acquitted because there was never enough evidence, (or any evidence), to support such a charge.

It amazes me that you can take all of that into account, and then decide that the answer to "these situations" is more oppressive gun regulations. Why not admit that identity-politics tactics failed, and had the results were the opposite of what was intended? All they had to do was look at the situation objectively, and apply existing laws objectively. Instead, they went right to race and tried to convict Zimmerman as a dangerous white supremacist (even though he's not white)

And you think the problem here is gun laws........?????!!!!!!!

You really need to learn to sort out what news you hear is news, and what's demagoguery. Because I find it hard to believe that you would hold half the opinions that you do if you had all the facts.

Go ask Oskar if you can borrow some of his IQ's

Side Note: I think this more recent shooter will be convicted. See post #1577. There seems to be plenty of evidence to prove "malice aforethought". You guys should have taken that 50-1 wager that I was offering before I saw that story.

"The [Zimmerman] jury made the right call according to the law. But Zimmerman probably isn't getting into heaven"

-Trump (paraphrased)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

The kind who didn't get the memo that the Wild Wild West is over.

---

Yesterday I was walking into a Subway when I saw a guy with a pistol strapped to his hip and a T-shirt depicting an AK-47 with the caption "Come and Take It"

No one died.