Is the world to forever be divided between the people who think they know what is better for everybody else, and the people who don't think that?
Printable View
Is the world to forever be divided between the people who think they know what is better for everybody else, and the people who don't think that?
Why is this your business?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you a PI? A cop? A fucking security guard? Batman? Paul Blart? Do you have a uniform on, or a god damn t-shirt, or any other indicator for whatever bullshit reason you might possibly have had for being behind me (costume shops do exist, though)?
The only reason you follow a person is to pickpocket said person. Or to stalk said person, aka you are a pantyshot guy. Or you are law enforcement, and you are doing your fucking job. Said person becomes your target.
BTW, NW is not law enforcement. Just making sure we are on the same page.
There is no reason in the world why you would just follow a random person who you have no idea who the fuck he or she is around which is for any kind of good. Why the fuck would you just randomly follow anyone, particularly a random person?
A neigbourhood watch is just communication. You see someone you don't know in your neigbourhood, you are supposed to communicate with the others who live there indicating you saw someone who is not supposed to be where you think they were supposed to be as you have no idea what they are up to or who they are. If it escalates, you call in security, or cops. That, and look for missing cats during the day.
That's all. No playing lone ranger.
Would you not feel threatened if someone is intently and purposefully following you around, late at night, and you are the only two people on the street? What about during the plain of day? With so many other paths to take, he takes the exact one you take, speeding up and slowing down, and even stopping exactly when you do. AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE FUCK THIS PERSON IS.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If I'm walking around some neighbourhood, and then a random person starts following me intently for like 2 blocks and I notice it, I will stop and see if you walk by. If I stop and you stop, then I go and you go, we WILL undoubtedly have a confrontation because why the fuck are you following me?
I'd probably say something along the lines of "why the fuck are you following me for"?
What follows, ong?
Now, keeping in mind that I'm actually big and black, unlike Martin here who was actually just a black kid, there is a non-zero chance the fucking coward following me for no reason would most likely fear for his life because I asked him a question and kill me.
Because THAT'S WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR. A CONFRONTATION. ME ASKING HIM WHY HE IS FOLLOWING ME IS A CONFRONTATION TO HIM. A REASON TO USE THE FUCKING PIECE HE WAS CARRYING AS HE FEELS MORTALLY THREATENED BY MY LANGUAGE. AND ME BEING ME. Like what happened with the guy taking another guys life for an argument over a handicap space. And a shove. And mind you, post-shove, the shover stepped back. He could go in on the ground and clock the other guy MMA style, but he didn't. He stepped back from the confrontation.
That was enough to take his life, though.
Judge, jury, executioner all in one. Judge fucking Dredd.
If you're charged with watching the neighborhood, then randos are exactly what you're looking for. Trayvon didn't live there.Quote:
There is no reason in the world why you would just follow a random person who you have no idea who the fuck he or she is around which is for any kind of good. Why the fuck would you just randomly follow anyone, particularly a random person?
That's exactly what he didQuote:
A neigbourhood watch is just communication. ....you call in security, or cops.
^language of a demagogue. Sad really. All Zimmerman did was watch where Trayvon was going, and relaying that information to police dispatchers.Quote:
That's all. No playing lone ranger.
Wait a minute...this presumes that you know that if you take a step back, he will take a step back. And when a person takes a step back that automatically makes them harmless and innocent. Isn't that how it works?Quote:
If I stop and you stop, then I go and you go, we WILL undoubtedly have a confrontation because why the fuck are you following me?
WRONG! All the pictures in the media were like four years old at the time. They all showed Trayvon when he was like 14, because that's what demagogues do. He was actually a full grown man.Quote:
Now, keeping in mind that I'm actually big and black, unlike Martin here who was actually just a black kid,
Again, PLEASE go get the actual facts of this case if you really want to discuss it.
Here's some hints to get you started.
1) Trayvon was cutting through private property in order to take a shortcut to a parallel street where his father lived. That's why Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. Not because he was black. Not because he was wearing a hoodie. It's because he was somewhere he wasn't supposed to be. And it was Zimmerman's responsibility as a member of the NW to watch for exactly that kind of thing.
2) While you can say it was over-zealous for Zimmerman to follow him after making the initial report, what you can't say is that it was unlawful. He was on the phone with police dispatch the entire time. It's not like Zimmerman was going looking for a fight. Usually if a person is trying to commit a crime, they don't live-stream it to the cops
3) All Trayvon had to do was walk to his house, and open the door. Instead, he evaded Zimmerman. From Zimmerman's point of view, doesn't this validate his suspicion? Even if you don't agree, that doesn't change the fact that all Zimmerman was trying to do was locate a suspicious person doing suspicious things and relay that information to law enforcement. He wasn't looking for a fight.
4) He only got in a fight because instead of just going home and being a reasonable person, Trayvon decided to make a violent confrontation with Zimmerman. you get that? Trayvon initiated the fight. All he had to do was go home. All he had to do was call the cops himself and say "help me I'm being followed by a fat mexican" Instead he stayed on the phone with his girlfriend boasting about his upcoming fight.
All Zimmerman did was follow a guy. Trayvon threw fists. Zimmerman screamed for help. Trayvon said "your'e gonna die tonight"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgxUoky4kg
An FBI agent. As responsible a gun owner as they come.
Then call the cops and go homeQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Did he do the "go home" part??Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How is the "following" of a person to you, you high-IQ non-demagogue?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I hoped that that was actually all he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
LOL, logicQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dude, 18 year olds are kids. It's not like magically they leap to adulthood once they leave 17 years and 355 days of age.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No I don't. All I know is DO NOT FOLLOW ME AT RANDOM. If you saw me jumping some fence, then call the cops and go home. It is not your job to take the law into your own hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Bingo. Call the cops and go home. He did not really master the go home part.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You can also do a flashlight on the dude or something and shout loudly so that more people hear the commotion, from afar, "I saw you jumping a fence, you are not from around here, I have the cops on the phone right here". Do not be Batman, do not go into the confrontation.
Employee of the month right thereQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Then his job was done. He followed him, he said he commited a crime, he said he saw him commit a crime (the felony of jumping a fence of course), now let the cops do their job. It's over, go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I wonder if he would have followed him without having a gun on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Unless you actually believe you are Batman or some shit. You gotta text commisioner Gordon while you are at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Anything he would do would validate his suspicion. Like the dude from the parking lot shooting. That is why he should just leave the amateur CBing and go home. He already reported. Sit chill and wait for the cops to arrive and do their shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Once he sat on his tail, he was looking for a confrontation. He could finally start jerking off to the moment he stopped a criminal mastermind who jumped a fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you follow somebody there are two results. If you stop following that person, then you are not looking for one of those results, as it cannot possibly happen.
The situation was ripe for all kinds of shit, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
See that? "Situation"
I probably would as well, some random unidentified dude follows you at night with no clear indication who he is or what he wants?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ironically that was all Zimmerman had to do as well. Shit, I just mentioned that one thing like 20 times in this response.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Kids. See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Do not follow random people. Also, you are not Batman. Spoiler alert: Batman does not exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Such a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Trayvon's last words, according to Zimmerman. Is there an actual, verified recording of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBXz2_o0KM
Keep in mind, this dude is basically a gun nut. This is an as biased an account of things as you could get.
And yet the first thing he says is to NOT GET INTO FIGHTS.
JUST CARRYING A FIREARM DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO BE THE JERK.
JUST CARRYING A FIREARM DOES NOT MAKE YOU THE ENFORCER OF ANY MORAL CODE.
I like this guy.
And this is a few cops perspective of the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjNd3XW9qOQ
Why is it not? I'm not breaking a law following someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack
Do I need a uniform on to go for a walk?Quote:
Are you a PI? A cop? A fucking security guard? Batman? Paul Blart? Do you have a uniform on, or a god damn t-shirt, or any other indicator for whatever bullshit reason you might possibly have had for being behind me (costume shops do exist, though)?
Or you are a concerned resident who decides to go for a walk to make sure that guy isn't doing anything he shouldn't be doing. This is not illegal.Quote:
The only reason you follow a person is to pickpocket said person. Or to stalk said person, aka you are a pantyshot guy. Or you are law enforcement, and you are doing your fucking job. Said person becomes your target.
I'm not arguin it is. I'm arguing that there's nothing wrong with going for a walk, and that I am perfectly entitled to go that way, in the same direction as that dodgy looking guy.Quote:
BTW, NW is not law enforcement. Just making sure we are on the same page.
Right. So you're being very specific with the definition of "neighbourhood watch" while being very loose with the word "stalking".Quote:
A neigbourhood watch is just communication.
Going for a walk is not illegal. Walking the same route as someone else is not illegal. Thinking you can differentiate between "following someone" and "walking in the same direction as someone" is nonsense.
I'm glad you're finally getting yo an important question.Quote:
Would you not feel threatened if someone is intently and purposefully following you around, late at night, and you are the only two people on the street?
Would I feel threatened? It depends.
How closely am I being followed? Are they maintaining distance or getting closer? What if I walk faster? And one more very, very important question... do I have anything to hide? I mean, is calling the police an option if I am truly afriad of this person's intentions?
I have walked late at night in town centre many, many times. I have lost count of the times I have kept an eye on someone walking the same route as me to ensure they're not gaining on me. Is that fear? I call it caution. If you're out and about alone, late at night, you have a responsibility to protect yourself. Keep an eye on who's around, make sure you know where you are and where you're going. If you feel threatened, fucking run, or call the police.
I mean sure you can easily argue a man should have the right to walk around any time without fear. Sure. A man also has a right to take a walk without fear of being accused of stalking What's the difference between going for a walk and folloing someone? You need to be very clear, legal clarity is needed to further this debate.
Wait, you think you're being followed, are in fear, and you stop? Then you're an idiot.Quote:
With so many other paths to take, he takes the exact one you take, speeding up and slowing down, and even stopping exactly when you do.
Right, well if you're going to stop and have a confrontation, I don't think you can use the word "fear" to describe your emotions at this moment in time. Furthermore, you're doing someone wrong now. You're turning a walk into a conversation. You might be harassing him now, I mean he was doing nothing illegal, and now your are confronting him, demanding an explanation. You're infinging on his right to go for a walk, while he was no infringing any of your right, unless you're going to argue you have the right to not be "followed", in which case you're going to need to clarify legally what that means.Quote:
If I'm walking around some neighbourhood, and then a random person starts following me intently for like 2 blocks and I notice it, I will stop and see if you walk by. If I stop and you stop, then I go and you go, we WILL undoubtedly have a confrontation because why the fuck are you following me?
So you're escalating this situation. This is highly irresponsible.Quote:
I'd probably say something along the lines of "why the fuck are you following me for"?
"coward"Quote:
Now, keeping in mind that I'm actually big and black, unlike Martin here who was actually just a black kid, there is a non-zero chance the fucking coward following me for no reason would most likely fear for his life because I asked him a question and kill me.
"no reason"
This is just rhetoric, but you know nothing about this stranger. How do you know he's not simply going for a walk? How do you know he's not some kind neighbourhood watch type keeping an eye on the streets? Why is that a problem for you? What gives you the right to interrupt his walk with confrontation, while he doesn't have the right to walk the same way you're going? How do you think you're in the right when you stop someone you don't know and challenge them?
So are you. You stopped.Quote:
Because THAT'S WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR. A CONFRONTATION.
Jack - your opinion of the Zimmerman case is colored by words that YOU inserted into the narrative. You're not perceiving facts. you're letting your own brain confirmation-bias you into believing that Zimmerman was a thug and Trayvon sweet and harmless.
It was so clearly the other way around, I can't possibly understand why you insist on being in such denial. Please ask Oskar to borrow some IQ's before posting on this again.
Why do you say "randomly" so much? Trayvon was in a place he wasn't supposed to be. That's what alerted Zimmerman. That's why he called the cops. You say he should go home. Maybe. But just because he doesn't go home, doesn't make him a criminal. Surveillance is not illegal. It's not even unreasonable if you're a member of group charged with the function of neighborhood surveillance. You can call it stalking, following, harassing, or whatever pejorative verb your demagogue imagination chooses. But you're only deluding yourself by using these loaded terms to describe perfectly reasonable actions.
That is just about exactly what happened. You must have forgot that part because it doesn't fit your racist-thug narrative. Zimmerman did exactly what you're calling for here, and Trayvon clocked him in the head. PLEASE GET THE FUCKING FACTSQuote:
You can also do a flashlight on the dude or something and shout loudly so that more people hear the commotion, from afar, "I saw you jumping a fence, you are not from around here, I have the cops on the phone right here".
This is a question of fact for a jury. A jury was convened. The question was asked. The jury gave its answer. Why are you still asking the question?Quote:
I wonder if he would have followed him without having a gun on him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://lifehacker.com/how-to-follow...ght-1454091062Quote:
Following someone is generally a bad idea unless you're a licensed private investigator, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of how it's done so you can protect yourself where possible.
It's worth pointing out that, while laws vary from state to state, following someone is not only a gross invasion of privacy, but can also be illegal if it can be interpreted either as stalking or harassment in your area. You can read more about the legality of stalking in each state here, however, in general, it is a very bad idea to follow someone without their permission.
Are you going for a walk or are you following someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In the former, no. In the latter, goddamn yes.
These are attorneys answering this very question:
Quote:
When you observed potentially illegal conduct simply stop, telephone 911 and report the actions you observe as suspicious. Leave the "following" or investigation to the police.
Quote:
The criminal law underwent a metamorphosis twent years ago with domestic violence legislation. Merely following someone is now the crime of "stalking". The perpetrator can be arrested and order of protection issued for the complainant.
This scheme can be abused by the complainant to mask her own criminal misconduct because of the emphasis to make examples of violent individuals. These days, any interpersonal violence is criminally sanctionable. You'll need an attorney every time you make friends.
I did not write the law.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/i...o-1337955.htmlQuote:
Depending on the particulars of the situation, it might constitute a crime or a violation or nothing. A physical "attack" however, is usually criminal in nature.
You are actively looking for a confrontation. That's why. Particularly if you do not know the person you decided to play Magnum PI on. What exactly do you think will result from this action?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
See what lawyers above think about you going for a walk and just "happen" to follow a person around.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes. Do you like being followed around by some random person for no reason you can think of?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
US Lawyers disagree. Probably most other countries as well. There is a reason why cop cars in britain have such brash coloring.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So you are just about your business, and you notice someone is following you. Quite intently. I assume of course you have not done anything wrong, it's not like you just robbed another person at gunpoint or something. I cannot see how the question in that moment is anything but: why the fuck are you following me?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Mmmmm. So you think following a person is not a bad thing to do, yet you too keep an eye out for this exact thing. So, if you do not think it is a wrong thing to do, why do you care?
Which is my point to begin with. The only reason you'd be following me is to do me harm. There is no other proper reason for you to do so. Why are you arguing with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In such situations, you do not know how you will react. Not everyone remains cool as a cucumber here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You just said it above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I have been quite clear on my stance on this IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
And that is my point about the situation and the escalation of said situations. He did me wrong by following me. Now I do him wrong by confronting him. How can this end well?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Me? Who turned my walk into a stalkfest?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And yet you feel the need to protect yourself in that situation, right? But it's not a wrong thing for him to do, right? It's not illegal either?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Then why do you feel the need to protect yourself from that situation?
Would be my way of protecting myself from that situation. Remember, people are differentQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And he infringed on my right for privacyQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He infringed on my right for privacyQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Do not follow me around. Do I have to clarify what I mean by that? Isn't the "Don't follow me around" part clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, not everyone is the same. People react differently in different situations. I'm sure a few of the carry guys would be salivating at the chance of the follower saying anything to them and then they would shoot said person in a millisecond because "they felt threatened".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Now I would also feel threatened by someone following me, and my response would probably be as I described above. And this situation could have been perfectly avoided by simply respecting each other's privacy.
See something suspicious? Call it in. That's all you have to do.
Would he not have gone after him had he not had the warm feels provided by the piece he was carrying?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again. See something suspicious? Call it in. That's all you have to do. This is what a lawyer says:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
When you observed potentially illegal conduct simply stop, telephone 911 and report the actions you observe as suspicious. Leave the "following" or investigation to the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My point about the uniforms/indication as to who you are. Identify yourself, and your intentions. That is why cop cars in the UK have battenburg markings.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
See my whole response above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What gives him the right to invade my privacy in minding my business and follow me?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He ABSOLUTELY CAN go where I'm going. That's the reason for the movement stops. If he is actually going where I'm going, he would continue moving, no problems with that, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Only if they are following me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And that's the thing. What was he expecting by following me?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
All of this hypothetical could have been avoided had he just NOT FOLLOWED me.
Thugs generally shoot people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your lack of empathy is baffling.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Enough for a death penalty apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Good for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
End of argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nah, he wanted more. He got more. The other guy too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah, there is a nice invention called a camera just for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you wanted to follow people around in the name of neighbourhood watch, please identify yourself as being so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Only perfectly reasonable if you are actively looking for action.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How do you know this? After the fact a keyring flashlight was found? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You must not have seen the video of cops planting evidence just so then turning on their bodycams.
It fits Zimmerman's Batman narrative perfectlyQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is the problem. I probably would too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What was he expecting once he decided to follow the guy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
OJ's jury aquitted him as well. Spoiler alert; he did itQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ok, did Zimmerman's jury come out afterwards and say "we know he did it but we let him off anyway as revenge for Rodney King" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
^Total demagogueryQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
What 'Batman' narrative?
When have you ever heard Batman say "I was walking back to my truck and this dude jumped me and broke my nose. I was screaming for help like a pussy bitch. He reached for the gun. He was going to kill me, so I shot him."
I really don't even see why we're having such a nit-picky debate about the details of the confrontation. Both men had the opportunity to walk away from the incident before it began. Both men contributed to the escalation. One more than the other obviously, but let's not get into who's who. I doubt very much that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation with fists, while he was armed, right after he called the cops. That makes zero sense. Trayvon threw the first punch. Maybe you think he was justified in doing so. You're wrong, but I don't care. After that point, what do you expect Zimmerman to think? His nose is broken, his head has been slammed into concrete, his assailant knows a gun is in play, he's screamed for help, he's tried to get away....are you really saying he shouldn't shoot?? You're nuts!
But nevermind all that. Your issues with this case are summed up in two questions....
A) Was Zimmerman criminally negligent when he continued to follow Trayvon against the advice of the dispatcher? Did he do anything that could reasonably lead to a violent confrontation (mere surveillance doesn't count!)? Was he criminally responsible in the escalation by being negligent?
B) Was Zimmerman's entire purpose for reporting Trayvon's presence and subsequently following him, racially motivated? Was Trayvon profiled and surveilled merely because of ethnic animus?
If you answer yes to A, but not B. Then charge Zimmerman with Criminally Negligent Homicide and let the the jury sort out what actions are reasonable, and which are negligent. But if you answered yes to B, or A and B, then you charge him with murder, and throw the fucking book at him. However, it should be noted that in light of all available evidence, you would have to be a hopeless moron possessed by identity politics ideology to answer 'yes' to question B.
Enter Al Sharpton
Jack, if you think justice was perverted here, I challenge you to identify exactly how. The prosecution was tainted with politics because of people like you demanding justice for a perfectly lawful shooting because you're so blinded by post-modern indoctrination that YOU LITERALLY CAN'T SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A WHITE OPPRESSOR SUBOORDINATING A BLACK VICTIM.
It was demanded that Zimmerman be charged with a crime and a motive that was never supported by a shred of evidence. And the results were what you'd expect.
Wow that's a biggie, I read as I reply...
I'll assume you get to the legal difference between the two later in your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack
Nope, doesn't answer my question.Quote:
These are attorneys answering this very question:
Jeez, so if I'm walking through town and someone is behind me going in the same direction, I should call the police? I mean, I'm being followed. Maybe I need to turn right or left and see the other person make the same change before we are legally classed as "being followed". Still, maybe they were going that way anyway. Where's the line?Quote:
Originally Posted by random attourney
You're assuming this is "actively seeking confrontation". If the follower keeps some kind of reasonable distance, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume the follower only intends to call the police if he is witness to a crime. That isn't confrontation.Quote:
You are actively looking for a confrontation. That's why. Particularly if you do not know the person you decided to play Magnum PI on. What exactly do you think will result from this action?
Yeah those lawyers were really clear about that. I'm still unaware who makes the determination that a person is following someone, as opposed walking in the same direction as someone.Quote:
See what lawyers above think about you going for a walk and just "happen" to follow a person around.
I don't believe I have the right to stop someone taking a walk in public. I will walk at a good pace to ensure reasonable distance, and if he still gains on me, and I'm convinced he's a threat, well I probably just run. If he starts running too, well now it's more than "merely following", there is no question he is in pursuit of me, and it's a different ball game.Quote:
Yes. Do you like being followed around by some random person for no reason you can think of?
The idea it's illegal to "merely follow" someone is ludicrous. That's certainly not the case here in the UK. There would need to be aggravating circumastances for it to become criminal.
Yep, "why the fuck are you following me" is definitely something I would think. So I walk faster, try to remove myself from this potentially dangerous situation. At no point do I think "this guy has no right to walk the same direction as I am walking", because that would be insane. I am out in public.Quote:
So you are just about your business, and you notice someone is following you. Quite intently. I assume of course you have not done anything wrong, it's not like you just robbed another person at gunpoint or something. I cannot see how the question in that moment is anything but: why the fuck are you following me?
I am pretty sure that every time I thought I was being followed, I wasn't, I was just being paranoid. And herein lies the problem. Who determines if my paranoia is justified?Quote:
Mmmmm. So you think following a person is not a bad thing to do, yet you too keep an eye out for this exact thing. So, if you do not think it is a wrong thing to do, why do you care?
"Merely following someone" is not a bad thing to do. Following someone to rob them, confront them, or otherwise aggravate the situation, that's not ok.
I care who's following me because I am aware there are bad people in the world. But I don't think someone patrolling the streets as some kinf of crime prevention initiative is a bad person. How can I tell the difference? How do I know if I'm just being paranoid or not? Do I err on the side of caution and have everyone within five meters of me arrested?
How do you not see the problems here?
I'm giving you a legitimate reason to "follow" someone. Patrolling the streets. That isn't with intent to do harm, is it? We can argue about whether it's necessary, or perhaps even legal, but it's not intended to do harm, so why are you immmediately assuming anyone who follows you intends to do you harm? And again, we come back to, how do you know you are being followed?Quote:
Which is my point to begin with. The only reason you'd be following me is to do me harm. There is no other proper reason for you to do so. Why are you arguing with me?
I know if I feel threatened by someone who might be follwoing me late at night, I run.Quote:
In such situations, you do not know how you will react. Not everyone remains cool as a cucumber here.
I'm not asking for your stance, I'm asking for legal clarification on the difference between following someone and walking in the same direction as someone. You haven't answered that, you've deflected because it's a very hard question to answer.Quote:
I have been quite clear on my stance on this IMO.
Well, no. The problem is that you think he's doing wrong. First of all, you might just be being paranoid. But let's assume you are convinced you are not being paranoid. Well, I think you'll find the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. If you're going to confront people who have the balls to blatantly follow you, no I don't think it ends well. Hence, your actions are irresponsible. You're either confronting someone who gives no fucks, or you're being paranoid and starting on some guy walking home. This is better than running?Quote:
And that is my point about the situation and the escalation of said situations. He did me wrong by following me. Now I do him wrong by confronting him. How can this end well?
Because I take responsibility for my own safety, instead of demanding people have less rights to make me safer. I understand that some people are bad, while also understanding that people have a right to be out in public. I understand that I can't really tell the difference between "being followed" and "walking in the same direction as", so I err on the side of caution late at night and maintain reasonable distance. I also understand that maybe there are locals who like to keep an eye on the streets because of concerns about crime, and I don't personally have a problem with that, in fact I applaud it.Quote:
Then why do you feel the need to protect yourself from that situation?
You're not protecting yourself. You're doing the exact opposite.Quote:
Would be my way of protecting myself from that situation. Remember, people are different
There is no such right in public.Quote:
And he infringed on my right for privacy
No. Can I walk in the same direction as you?Quote:
Do not follow me around. Do I have to clarify what I mean by that? Isn't the "Don't follow me around" part clear?
Privacy is a really poor choice of words when referring to a public place.Quote:
And this situation could have been perfectly avoided by simply respecting each other's privacy.
I dunno. You think everyone who follows someone else has a gun?Quote:
Would he not have gone after him had he not had the warm feels provided by the piece he was carrying?
So here we come back to one reason why you might follow someone... maybe, just maybe that person looks a bit shady, but nothing more... you're gonna call the cops and say "shady mofo on the streets"? Nope, you might decide to take the dog for a walk and see if he's up to no good, and call the cops if you witness something criminal.Quote:
Again. See something suspicious? Call it in. That's all you have to do. This is what a lawyer says:
Don't all countries have LOOK AT ME cop cars? I also assume all countries have unmarked cop cars.Quote:
My point about the uniforms/indication as to who you are. Identify yourself, and your intentions. That is why cop cars in the UK have battenburg markings.
Where's my "taking the dog for a walk" uniform?
No. Maybe your sudden stopping has him paranoid, and he doesn't want to gain on you. Maybe he's trying to keep reasonable distance, and you're not letting him. How is he intimidating you and not the other way around?Quote:
He ABSOLUTELY CAN go where I'm going. That's the reason for the movement stops. If he is actually going where I'm going, he would continue moving, no problems with that, right?
Officer, I was walking the dog.Quote:
All of this hypothetical could have been avoided had he just NOT FOLLOWED me.
Oh and why was there such a massive public outcry condemning this a racially motivated hate crime?? Well, I think that was pretty obvious when we all heard NBC release the audio of Zimmerman's 911 call...
I mean, right there, the guy is obviously a hate-monger right? Clearly this was a racially motivated hate crime, and he should be charged with murder, right? "he looks black". He might as well have said "he looks like a filthy big-lipped thief"Quote:
This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black
Everyone heard this tape. It was headlines for days.
except no one ever hears the correction or follow up weeks later. You see, it turns out that our friends at the "real news" decided to edit the recording. Here's the full transcript:
Huh....I wonder why the "racist ass hole" argument failed in court.Quote:
Z: This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about
Dispatcher: OK and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?
Z: He looks black
Baffling? Empathy is not something we're all blessed with. Some people are sociopathic. It's a trait. Traits baffle you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jack
What am I supposed to have empathy for?
Zimmerman may have had bad reasons for following trayvon. And you can judge him morally however you like. I might even agree with you. But at no time were his actions unlawful. And the distinction matters. Just because the outcome was unusually catastrophic, doesn't mean that you can retroactively go back and de-legalize Zimmerman's actions to that point.
Conducting surveillance is NOT a crime. Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman. He didn't have to do that. And if you're going to judge Zimmerman's motivations, then you have to judge Trayvon's too. Why would he choose to start a fight rather than simply walk inside his house, or at least call for help?
What happened was an unfortunate coincidental calamity of tragedies. Nothing more. Any attempt to interpret further is merely an instinctive reaction borne out of frustration and low emotional intelligence. A man is dead, and he shouldn't be. Emotional instincts cry out for justice. They seek to blame. Scapegoats are offered. Peer pressure and mob mentality takes over.
Now people have to decide. They can be cold, objective, and by-the-book legal. Or they can be empathetic, and compassionate by taking a stand for the racially oppressed. The former requires you to be unpopular and value the rule of law over the suffering and pain of the victims. The latter comes with the opportunity for virtue-signaling and moral posturing. All things considered, that's a pretty fucking good deal. Facts be damned.
But please do understand the pathetically low levels of intelligence you're displaying when you make that choice.
As someone who's called the police because I was being followed, and one the followers (2) threw something at me*, which I dodged.
On the police call, despite the fact that it was night time, the followers were wearing hoodies so I couldn't see their faces at all, the dispatcher kept asking me if they were white or black. I had to tell her like 5 times that I couldn't tell, given the lighting and their clothing.
Skin color is a quick way to rule out suspects to the police. If they know they're looking for 2 white guys in hoodies, then they can rule out every non-white, non-hoodie wearing person they see. It's stupid to turn that information into a race issue. It's literally, "What did they look like?" Skin color is an obvious character trait.
*Turns out it was a half-eaten Rice Crispie Treat, and they were probably just punk kids being stupid.
Good story, huh.
Does anyone remember when "punk" meant an awesome genre of music, rather than a generic word for a little twat?
To be fair, I do like the way Americans say "punk" when used in the same context as "cunt". It goes well with the accent, like "bloody" in England.
Once, in college, I spent the afternoon with a friend smoking weed and watching Simpsons reruns. Then I ordered Chinese take out from the Cheung-Kee, which was on my way home. I entered the highway at exit 10 (where my friend lived) heading south. As I was merging, I was cutoff by an idiot who doesn't know how to drive. I honked, and then he slowed down.
It was a car full of teenagers and they were having an awfully good time making faces at me and flipping me the middle finger and what not.
I stayed behind them rather than pass, because I intended to get off at the next exit in a quarter mile.
Coincidentally, they got off at the same exit. Their faces turned from mischievous to anxious, but still laughing. But the brazen hand gestures stopped, and their behavior became less provoking, and more nervously watchful.
The took a right off the exit. I was going the same way.
The took a left at the next light. So did I.
They turned into a strip mall. I followed.
They parked right in front of the Cheung Kee. The restaurant only had two parking spots, so I parked right next to them.
As I parked, they were already out of the car. As I got out of the car, I walked by them.
I've never seen real fear like that in my life. These kids thought that every horror story their parents ever told them about strangers was about to come true. Not one of them said a word. They all stood frozen, but watching me very very closely.
I went inside, paid for my food, and left.
I'll bet those kids are all great drivers now.
Just me affecting positive change in the world man.
I bet they all carry guns now, you mean.
By Jack's logic, the four of them would be totally justified in beating the crap out of me, and if I dared to defend myself, I should go to jail.
'cuz...who follows someone???
Positive changeQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh, you know, the vigilante part?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
C'mon, even with your intellect you should have been able to make that connection
Cliff's notes: dude killed a dude because he wanted adventure and yet was a pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
MBN to live in a country where you never know who has a gun and a hair-trigger brain.
The only way that story gets better is if they all draw on him at the store and take his Chinese food.
Actually, yeah. When I see sociopathic tendencies like that it's kind of baffling to meQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean, you know there have to be people out there who are bonafide assholes, literally incapable of seeing any situation through anyone else's eyes but their own.
And then you find them. It's just like seeing a snake IRL the first time at a zoo.
I mean, you know they exist and yet you do not really mind (think about) them until you find them
Got a source for the bolded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Like Switzerland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The problem with America isn't guns. It's Americans.
You forgot the confrontationally asking "why the fuck you following me" part.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But I know. Must have flown right by your high iq
LOL.. you don't even know what empathy means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It doesn't mean that someone has to be blamed and punished for a tragedy.
You mean Al Sharpton?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't think a lack of empathy is the inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's the ability to not give a fuck about random people, regardless of any sense of understanding for their situation.Quote:
I mean, you know there have to be people out there who are bonafide assholes, literally incapable of seeing any situation through anyone else's eyes but their own.
And what if they don't like my answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
What if my answer is "fuck you that's why"
What are they allowed to do to me then?
The Swiss have hair-trigger brains?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nope, but they have guns. Like I say, the problem is cultural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ong, how many times and how many different ways did I mention this exact thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You are arguing my point by stating my point. What are you doing
Your strawmen must be getting worn outQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Then I guess you must pull out a minigun and mow the city downQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
LOL, this from the guy screaming "BATMAN COMPLEX" about a guy crying for helpQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
and "HATEFUL WHITE SUPREMACIS" about a hispanic guy.
Tell me again what stawman is?
The easiest way to understand another person's situation, feelings, motives is the metaphorical putting yourself in their shoesQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or do you have another better way?
You're missing my point Jack. If you turn left, then turn right, and the guy does the same, how do you don't know you're being followed? Maybe he just happens to be going the same way. More to the point, how does a court prove this guy was unlawfully following you? How does a court prove that someone didn't accidentally go the wrong way? How does a court prove a person's route is identical to another person's? How does a court prove intent to follow?
IF there are aggravating factors, such as running, or brandishing a weapon, or some kind of direct confrontation, or some kind of obsessive stalking, then it's a different matter. We're no longer just taking a walk. But if you're simply following someone who you've never met before, keeping a distance and not being otherwise intimidating, with no intention of actually engaging that person, then you're taking a walk.
isn't he? Thinking he is the caped crusader cause he has a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If he had no gun, he'd be at home watching UFC reruns
I'm unsure as to the word "white" appearing in any of my statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I do know for a fact I never claimed anything about "hate" nor "supremacy". Be sure to check, since you like facts so much.
Your point about stopping, that doesn't wash. If I were walking home, and the guy in front of me suddenly stopped and looked at me, I'd at least slow down, and stop if I were too close and felt intimidated. You say you're a big guy? Yeah that would unnerve the fuck out of me.
It's obviously implied when you invoke racism as the motivationQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, it's not implied. You are attempting yet another strawman
These must be getting worn out
The gun he was carryingQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
StrawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Because you don't want to understand, that's a different thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You may walk around very aloofly, I don't.
If I notice someone following me, I will change course immediately/in a dissimulated manner just to see if they continue following. I may even stop in my tracks and see if they continue walking along. Or not.
It's inevitable that at some point there will be a confrontation if they get made.
I am aware of my surroundings at all times when on the move, Ong
Unlike yoursQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You sound like a a batshit gun-toting psycho from the American south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If I think I'm being followed, I'll walk faster and plan a route that allows me to determine if I am indeed being followed, ie take a right, then a left, then a left, knowing that a local going the same way would have just gone straight on at the first turning. If I'm unfamiliar with the area, then my pace will be even more brisk. I'm only thinking about confrontation if the fucker is too close for me to evade.
I get that if someone is changing direction with you, and it's clear there's no innocent reason for it, then we have a problem. But any sane person would try to get away from that situation, especially in a country where guns are widespread. And I still don't see how it can be illegal to "follow", from a purely practical point of view. It's near impossible to prove that someone is following, rather than walking in the same direction as.
And that's without a gun, Imagine that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is only when people decide to follow me on the street for no reason
Also, so now since your strawmen attempt failed you go straight to ad hominem?
LOL
The point is everyone is different Ong. Therefore, reactions will differ wildly. It's important to avoid such situations LDO.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Thank you, that is what I have been saying all alongQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't think like an American, as such the widespread firearm thing is completely nonsensical to meQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's the problem. However, that's why I would do the deliberate movements. It is very easy to make it out that way. The question is, once you made them, what follows?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Stop using those terms like you know what they meanQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yeah I mean this confirms it to you. Fair enough, and once you've made that determination, well if you're a fight rather tha flight guy, who am I to say you gotta run? But from a legal pov... how the fuck do you expect to prove he made those changes in his course?Quote:
That's the problem. However, that's why I would do the deliberate movements. It is very easy to make it out that way. The question is, once you made them, what follows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I can't see taking the cop's side. The guy was drunk. The cop was screaming at him and the guy was crying and obviously pissing his pants afraid. He looked to me like he just lost his balance for a second and the cop pumps him full of lead? Waaaat?
Maybe don't play Simon Says with someone while you're pointing a gun at them and they're drunk and expect them to follow your instructions to the letter.
Cop needed to be calm, keep everyone else calm and not be shouting like a maniac. Of course that's going to freak someone out. My God, even cops in the comments section were saying 'wtf'.
Yeah I mean what happened to "get the fuck on the floor, now" before edging ever closer before frisking him for a gun? Even drunks can't fuck that up.
I was wondering that myself. The only reason I can think of was maybe they thought someone else was around that corner waiting to ambush them?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But if that's the case, then why not have the guy crawl on his belly with his hands stretched out in front of him. What's makes them think it's a good idea to have him get up on his hands and knees?
I also didn't understand why, when the cop first told the guy to start crawling, he starts crawling, and then the cop shouts at him "CRAWL OVER HERE!!!!" Wasn't that what the guy was doing?
The guy reached behind himself toward his waistband twice. What is the cop supposed to think?
is he supposed to wait until there's a bullet flying at his face before he contemplates the use of force?
Fuck that. We need guys like this to keep the rest of us safe. They deserve to get home after work. Maybe this suspect is reaching for a gun. maybe he's just an idiot. Why does the cop have to take that risk? Why should he be expected to wager his life on whether this guy is a hostile killer, or a harmless dope.
Which is why I see absolutely no reason as to why this person would incite this situation by simply doing a thing he shouldn't do: follow a strangerQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The aftermath always becomes a he said she said
Only when you stop attempting these, high iq BananaQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
A lot of cops in the comments to that video seem to disagree. But then again, you also think once you pull a gun you're obliged to kill someone with it, so I'm not surprised you have this attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nah man, cops fucked up that situation from the beginning. They kept giving the guy different instructions, then yelling at him and totally freaking him out. It's no wonder the guy fucked up at some point.
Cop had a totally itchy trigger finger. I'm surprised he didn't blow the keycard guy away later in the video for not following instructions too.
Only one of them was left to tell the story though. That's the part Zimmerman fans keep neglecting to mention, because we only ever heard his version of events, of course he's going to make it out like he was a choir boy and Martin was a lunatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Have you ever been out to dinner with someone who has worked in food service, and feels emboldened to be judgmental and under-tip?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
People who comment on internet videos are the nut-low.
no they did not. The lady figured it out pretty easily. And you shouldn't really need to be told "don't reach for your waist when a cop has a gun pointed at you". No excuse for that level of stupidity. This guy being dead raised the average IQ of the human race.Quote:
Nah man, cops fucked up that situation from the beginning. They kept giving the guy different instructions,
Do you think the cops woke up that day and said "let's see if we can freak people out"? It's not like they aren't stressed either.Quote:
then yelling at him and totally freaking him out. It's no wonder the guy fucked up at some point.
LOL, you must be trolling, or really fucking high, if you think that guy got shot "for not following instructions"Quote:
I'm surprised he didn't blow the keycard guy away later in the video for not following instructions too.
Speaking of being judgmental...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Brutal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, I think the cop didn't have the appropriate emotional equipment for handling the situation properly. It was his screaming and playing Simon Says that contributed to the guys' fucking up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You must be trolling or really fucking high to be such a twat all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This shit just cracks me up
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...b0&oe=5BEFB03A
cant go anywhere in britain without getting stabbed or without a loicense. just ask ur mate who tried going somewhere
It's a leftover from when there were only a handful of channels and government sponsored channels made unprofitable programming decisions that were awesome, such as: Having one channel only broatcast foreign language programs with subtitles. Scrapping dolby surround in favor of dual language broadcasting. Having actual university courses on TV, sponsoring local filmmakers, and only running a couple of minutes of ads between programs... when I was a child I don't think there were ads at all.
I haven't had a TV in almost 20 years. About once every 3 years I get a knock on the door and a letter that I'm supposed to either register my tv, or sign a statent that I don't have one, which I don't, and there are no consequences. I imagine it's very similar in the UK.
Ads like these are just scare tactics. I very much doubt they collect names of TV buyers. If you're worried they do, just pay cash.
At least over here I don't think it's justified anymore. Public TV programming is just as retarded as private nowadays. BBC is pretty cool tho.
This loicence thing is all very funny and all, but sadly it's not very true. I mean, I have a driving licence, and that's all. And I've never been stabbed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But you have been raped in the baby, if I remember correctly?
No. I try to avoid mosques for this very reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Oi mate, ya 'ave a loicense fer that droiver's loicense?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...dont-like.html
More nanny state madness....
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/be...rnd/index.html
The Crutcher family probably wouldn't know shit about this if you hadn't opened your opportunistic demagogue mouth.Quote:
"We are saddened that the Crutcher Family has not been given time to heal, and we want to continue to show our gratitude and respect for this wonderful family."
This is wot happens when you don't have yer loicense, mate!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWcW-poY488&t=104s
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45395086
Moderate Malaysia. This is what Islam apologists support with their incessant accusations of racism at anyone who dares criticise Islam. This isn't Islamic State territory, this isn't a nation that has a problem with Islamic extremism. This is Malaysia, supposedly moderate.
Why do I have to accept this? Why is it not ok for me to say... Islam belongs in the fucking past?
Black Bobby Fischer checkmating CNN's Dana Bash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etnass7RaLE
You don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Because that's blaming billions of people for what less than billions of people have done which you do not accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hundreds of millions isn't enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Being opposed to and speaking out against people whom perpetrate atrocities is A-OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Being opposed to and speaking out against people whom remind you of other people whom perpetrate atrocities is bigotry.
How many of the first group does it take before it becomes incumbent on the second group to stop them? Is hundreds of millions enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
And what does it say about the second group if they are indifferent to the first group?
Are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
As gesture of solidarity with the country's Coptic Christian minority, Egyptian Muslims showed up at churches on the eve of the Coptic Christmas on 6 January 2011 during mass service forming a "human shield" against any possible further attacks. In the days before the mass, Muslims and Copts joined together in a show of solidarity that included street protests, rallies, and widespread Facebook unity campaigns calling for an "Egypt for All". In Lebanon, separate condemnations came from the Sunni Mufti of the Republic Mohammad Qabbani and Deputy Head of the Shiite Supreme Council Abdul Amir Qabalan. Hamas has also condemned the bombing in Alexandria, assigning the blame to hidden hands that do not wish well for Egypt and its Muslim and Christian people and seek to inflame sectarian strife. Hamas in its statement sent condolences to Egypt and the victims' families, and hoped that facts would be disclosed the soonest and that those responsible would be brought to justice.
Yes. I'm not falling for your smokescreen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
sure, it's nice that some muslims stopped some christians from being bullied. But ask those exact same muslims what should happen to any one of them who deigns to leave the muslim faith.....and two thirds of them will tell you "death".
That's a problem. It kinda debunks the idea that there are 'moderate' muslims outside of the west.
There is never a justified reason to blame someone for something they did not do, no matter how much they remind you of the people whom do blame-worthy things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nothing more than that they share some, but not all, of the beliefs of the offending group.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I am not responsible for the things other people do. No matter how much I remind you of them, I am not them.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There's no -ism to believe someone should die. It's bigotry to deny them rights and access to services while they're alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No one's saying you have to like people.
What you believe is not a problem. How you act on what you believe is potentially the problem.
There is a professor on campus whom openly says things like he thinks women don't make as good of scientists as men do. He's open in this belief. That's not sexism. Sexism would be if he treated his female students or colleagues in a manner which is different to the way he treats the males. He's whip smart, kinda like you sometimes show, and he knows exactly where that line is. He seems to get some perverse pleasure over rubbing it people's faces that he's free to say women are less than men, so long as his actions don't show his bias.
That's the line. Saying you hate Islam is fine. Saying that it's therefore appropriate to treat Muslims with a different level of human dignity is a totally different issue.
It's not a problem except that you can't seem to understand that if a Missourian commits a crime, that is not a condemnation of all Missourians.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Pew research polls indicate that two thirds of muslims in Egypt believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for an apostate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is that not alarming to you?
What about the frequency with which so-called 'moderate' muslims support death penalties for adulterers and homosexuals? Go google the polls man. Find out how many peace-loving muslims feel that deadly attacks against civilians (e.g. bombs) are an acceptable form of political speech.
A shitload of people hold some really fucking dangerous beliefs. That's a problem, is it not?
You seem to be suggesting that Islam, the institution, is somehow totally in the clear because the frequency of these beliefs is less than 100%.
Inappropriate analogy. Here's a better one....Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Imagine a series of letter bombs are found or go off 25 cities nationwide. All of the bombs have post marks originating from Missouri.
Where should you start looking for the bomber?
You seem to be shockingly ignorant of the threat posed by a dangerous ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That's concerning.
EDIT: It's also really concerning that you're a scientist and you referred to an anecdote, one that contained a press release from fucking HAMAS, as "data".
I'm not sure if we agree here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you consider treating someone like a dangerous enemy as being "a different level of human dignity".
Another example of the low IQ person ignoring the crux of the argument.
dumbana, his point is that you can't hold the group responsible for the behaviour of members of the group.
It's like when Trump goes to jail, should all of his Kool-Aid followers go to jail too?
It's really that simple.
His point is WRONG. You absolutely can hold the group responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There are three kinds of muslims
A) the kind that bomb civilians
B) The kind that don't bomb civilians but think it's fine if someone else does
C) The kind that don't bomb civilians because they think it's wrong every single time.
Group B is by far the largest. Groups A and B combined represent a STAGGERING majority of muslims worldwide. Group C, outside of the US and Britain, are squarely in the minority.
I hold group B responsible for group A's actions. By tolerating bad actors, they enable their behavior. And that's how I feel it's appropriate to hold the entire group responsible for the actions of group A
This is a non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Looking for the individual(s) responsible in a place where you have reason to believe they may be found is a totally different thing than assigning guilt to everyone whom meets some similarity to the letter-bomber, in this case all Missourians.
Pure ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're denying the veracity of the data based on the source, not the data.
You keep saying data....which is a plural noun. You should be using the singular form of the word, which is "anecdote"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Also, if the source is a known source of propaganda (cuz data), then how are you differentiating between data and propaganda?
I mean, don't you think it's a little odd that Hamas is so sure that the crime was caused by "hidden hands", and also seems to know an awful lot about the agenda and motives of the perpetrators? They could have just said "Sorry this happened, but we didn't do it".
Actually it's totally sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The bad actors have a motive for their bad actions. That motivation is responsible for their bad actions. The motivation is always the same, and always comes from the same ideology. So it's totally sequitur to look for the harmful motivation in a place where I have reason to believe that it may be found. That is....within the ideology that motivated the bad actions.
Serendipity
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/05...t-muslims.html
The posters are clearly targeting Group A.
Groups B & C are not participating in the denouncement of Group A. Instead, they think that Group A should be left alone because whatever they are doing is apparently far less dangerous than what might happen if someone in Group B/C gets a bad rap.