Ghost of a Rider
Gold Member
That liars are bad? Sure.
I'm not lying about anyone's character.
I think you are but that's not the point. You know that false accusations and lies are a possibility when passing judgment on racism, homophobia, etc., but you accept this as collateral damage and being the nature of the beast. This does not jibe with your morality about people honoring historical figures and makes you look like a hypocrite.
It's my honest opinion that slaver veneraters are pieces of human shit. Just because I agree above that liars are bad doesn't mean I agree with any instance in which you accuse someone of lying. Maybe you're lying. That would par for the course for a piece of human shit like you.
Never mind who's accusing who, false accusations happen, yes?
Ideals are emotions, you're just too slow to grasp it.
Negative Lumpy.
You've developed these ideas in a vacuum and not based on experiences from outside stimuli?
How do you develop emotions?
They are. They're just emotions you've assigned special importance to. Don't give me this may or may not be rooted in emotions bullshit. If you don't think they are emotions then explain to me what you think they actually are.
I already have. You just don't agree with it.
I don't care if you see it as just. My goal isn't for you to care but for Black Americans to receive reparations.
What you care or don't care about is irrelevant.
You're such a bitch. Government doesn't work any differently for me than it does for you.
Didn't say it did.
If that's how you wish to frame it then that framing exists for every part of government you support as well.
For the most part, I only support the basics. I certainly do not want government to be my enforcer, especially in something as trivial as statues.
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you don't agree with, objectively, from the statement that veneraters of Washington venerate a slaver. We've established that they venerate Washington and that Washington was a slaver. What's to disagree with, objectively?
I've already explained this multiple times as well. But one more time for the reading impaired: They don't honor these people because they owned slaves. They honor them for their achievements in spite of their owning slaves.
This is the only reason I'm still responding. Despite me telling you repeatedly that I don't care about your bitch feelings for some reason you keep trying to tell me about them.
Despite me telling you repeatedly why they honor historical figures, your bitch feelings have you obsessively continuing to ask about venerating slavers.
I thought his comments were transphobic. I don't know if he's transphobic. Maybe.
And those who say he is, are they right? Or, are they closer to the mark than you are? If he's not transphobic, does this mean those who say he is are liars?
I've been tolerating your speech this entire time
No you haven't. Consistently calling me racist is not tolerance.
and unlike you I've never suggested you should stop sharing your opinion because others might react violently.
I never did either.
What a lot of confused assumptions. Just because acceptance and tolerance is a sound principle in some instances doesn't mean it's a sound principle in all instances. And I've never advocated acceptance or tolerance. This was some position you've heard from other liberals and you think it applies to me. It doesn't.
So you don't advocate acceptance and tolerance?
Answer the question: What if someone you call homophobe is, in fact, not a homophobe?What about it? What if I'm not wrong about you being a racist?
What ifs are stupid. Make an argument.
Okay: You're a liar.
Jesus you're stupid. Opinions aren't right or wrong, just different. They're expressions of how people feel. If someone feels you're a racist or a transphobe what position are you in to say their feelings are false? You can feel differently but that's about it.
What position am I in to say their feelings are false? Really? You don't think I know better than you what MY feelings are?
Answer the question: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?I don't agree that my opinions and judgements are rash. That's simply your opinion. Is your opinion false or just different than my own?
Let me amend my earlier comment. I'm also sticking around to see if you can figure out what the fuck opinions are. It isn't this fucking hard my guy.
You're too fucking stupid to understand that opinions can be objectively false. And before you say it, I'm talking about any kind of opinion in any context.
A good example in this vein is the Nick Sandmann incident in D.C. in 2019. After the first photo showed up on CNN showing Sandmann facing a Native American while wearing a MAGA hat, half the country opined that he was racist and was harassing Phillips. This turned out to be objectively false.
They were slavers. They rebelled. What's objectively wrong with that description?
If taken separately, nothing. However, your saying that it was a slaver rebellion is false.
It might be apt to say the Civil War was a slaver rebellion as slavery was more or less the issue but that's not what the Revolutionary War was about.
Then use tyrant or slaver. Slaver and tyrant aren't better than terrorist. They're all pretty deplorable.
Nevertheless, I view Boko Haram as more deplorable than Washington.
Which were slaver colonies.
And? That's irrelevant to why the war was fought.
Already answered. If you don't like my answer tough tits. I find your entire framing of the issue disingenuous and racist.
Of course you do. But then, racism is always your default position when you don't understand an argument.
This all started when I told you about how some liberals think blacks are too helpless to acquire IDs. I say they are not. This is the only reason I brought it up. The North Carolina case is irrelevant here.
The case only serves to show how a Republican district targeted an African American community. It has nothing to do with the issue of IDs since that issue has been going on long before this.
You're confusing randos on the street and youtube with the real issue. Republicans targeting black voters is the real concern of black voters. Not confused rando white people.
No, this is your issue, not mine. Remember, I'm the one who brought it up and I know why I did.
I think this is deflection on your part. I say this because you actually haven't commented on whether IDs are difficult for blacks to obtain.
Of course you don't think Republicans efforts to target black voters is as important as some rando white persons thoughts on youtube. You're a racist. I wouldn't expect anything less.
Again, I don't think it's relevant to my point that liberals think blacks are too helpless to obtain IDs.
Was anyone else born in a segregated country and denied hospital services and proper documentation?
Are these people driving?
If that's your conclusion after you learn about black people born in the segregated South and denied proper services it's just more evidence of your racism.
What is that you so often Say? Oh yes: Boo-fucking-hoo.
Baker testified against the police and he maintains that the neck restraint killed Floyd. Cardiopulmonary arrest is simply the technical term for your heart stopping which it tends to do when deprived of oxygen.
It also does that when you have a lethal level of fentanyl in your system, which Floyd did.
That same autopsy said Floyd had a whole stew of drugs in his system and fentanyl in particular was at a lethal level.
The autopsy also said there were four blockages in his arteries and three of them were potentially fatal, meaning the blockage was about 70%.
The second autopsy was ordered by the family after the preliminary report released “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”
Exactly. You don't do an autopsy to specifically look for a given cause of death, you do an autopsy to determine cause of death. This is why I say the family and the two hired MEs were biased.
The family simply didn't trust the police or the prosecutors or the medical examiners office.
Why not? The state ME ruled homicide so what was the problem?
Ultimately that preliminary report was correct and it was ruled subdural, restraint and neck compression. It doesn't mean he wasn't asphyxiated, it just means that the means by which he was deprived of oxygen wasn't "traumatic" in a medical sense.
Right. But how do they know it wasn't the drugs and the arterial blockages since he was complaining he couldn't breath before Chauvin had his knee on his neck?
That's what witnesses for interested parties do. The witness for the defense was brought in to say that neck compression didn't kill Floyd. Ultimately their testimony was less believable to the jury.
Which might only mean the jury was influenced by the public outrage.
Everyone in this country on both sides knew that if they found Chauvin not guilty the ensuing riots were inevitable and would have turned cities into Hiroshimas.
I KNOW the second autopsy said asphyxia. Did they find something Baker missed or did they find the same thing and just expanded on the ruling?Again with these arguments that are basically admissions of your ignorance. Instead asking me over and over again if this and if that why don't you maybe try educating yourself before hand so you can present to me your argument rather than your ignorance?
2nd autopsy finds George Floyd died from asphyxia.