+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Covington High School Issue (/Thread-Covington-High-School-Issue)
RE: Covington High School Issue - BFritz21 - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I said some of them ere doing the chop which was offensive, and you agreed with me.
Neither you nor I can say what these young men were thinking. So there is no point arguing back and forth over something neither of us can prove. You can continue to pretend that you know, but you really don't.
Actually, you said they all were. I pointed out that only two, maybe three were, which you still claimed it was many even when I posted proof.
I feel pretty confident that I know what they were thinking considering how tight this community is, especially CovCath, and how much has been told about this event.
RE: Covington High School Issue - BFritz21 - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 02:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I posted a video. I don't care what you say. Until you post a video there is proof that he was surrounded.YOU DEFINITELY DISPUTED IT! You said Sandmann walked up to him and got in his face! Now you're backtracking because you know you're wrong!
As for Sandman standing there the entire time I never disputed that, so I don't even know what you are talking about.
Remember, all we are discussing is the original video. I admitted that it was deceptive, but it did show Mr. Phillips surrounded by the students. Apparently you have never watched that video. It is quite clear.
There's no proof he was surrounded! If anything, they were on the sides of him!
Also, your original claim was that they surrounded him, I then pointed out that he walked into the crowd, meaning that even the kids on the side of him were his own doing!
It's hilarious how much your story changes.
(01-31-2019, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I said some of them ere doing the chop which was offensive, and you agreed with me.
Neither you nor I can say what these young men were thinking. So there is no point arguing back and forth over something neither of us can prove. You can continue to pretend that you know, but you really don't.
You said all of them or a majority! Even saying "some" makes it sound like a group when it was only two or three.
Also, they're kids and thought they were playing along.
RE: Covington High School Issue - fredtoast - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: YOU DEFINITELY DISPUTED IT! You said Sandmann walked up to him and got in his face! Now you're backtracking because you know you're wrong!
I think you must be confused. Perhaps you need to go back and read my posts in this thread. I never said that. I will not address this again unless you post a quote from me saying that. I am glad to take part in any debate, but I am notgoing to argue about what I did or did not say when there is a quote function for you to use.
(01-31-2019, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There's no proof he was surrounded! If anything, they were on the sides of him!
Yes there is. I already posted the video showing that the young men were all around him. Again, if you have a video that shows that he was not surrounded please post it.
(01-31-2019, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, your original claim was that they surrounded him, I then pointed out that he walked into the crowd, meaning that even the kids on the side of him were his own doing!
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. If I said they surrounded him I just meant they were all around him. I did not mean they actively approached and surrounded him. The original video shows that the young men were all around him. That is what I meant by "surrounding" him.
(01-31-2019, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said all of them or a majority!
I may have said that all of them were chanting and whooping, but I never said that "all" or "a majority" were doing the chop. Again I will not argue about this until you post a quote of me saying what you claimed I said. It is ridiculous to argue about what I said when there is a quote function.
(01-31-2019, 03:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, they're kids and thought they were playing along.
Neither you nor I know what they were thinking. I am not going to argue about something that neither of us have any way of proving.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Dill - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Attempt to be clever gif aside, I've challenged you numerous times to make the case that I am not a centrist. I have cited numerous examples of left leaning policies I support. Several of the board members who identify as conservative have cited disagreeing with me on numerous issues. But I suppose actually proving your argument is much more difficult than posting what you think is a clever gif.
Thank you and enjoy the rest of your day.
I don't think Dino is going to back off the irony charge until he sees you go after some disgusting right wingers and their ilk, or at least back off right wing definitions of "the left" and throw up SOME of your angry bias charges against their media and politics. And I think he knows conservatives can disagree with conservatives without pushing anyone to the center so that defense is a fail.
In the meantime, I think we can grant you a unique label to fit your unique place on the political spectrum. As a nationalist defender of the 2nd Amendment who is wary of the dangers posed by Islam the religion, but who can't be a rightist because he is not a Republican and doesn't support Trump (however much you may attack "leftist" Trump critics) why don't we call you a
NATIONAL CENTRIST?
I bet Dino would go along with that. I'd like to see him prove you are not.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Dill - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote:
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c531a6e6d42714645c904f4]](https://media2.giphy.com/media/l0HlElA0BcFITYmhW/giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c531a6e6d42714645c904f4)
Hey D, I've got a hypothesis.
Suppose someone thinks that supporting a right or left political position is to be AUTOMATICALLY biased or "partisan" in some negative sense, while believing that adopting (or claiming) a centrist position is AUTOMATICALLY bias free and "non-partisan." (So simplistic--is that even possible in today's sophisticated online forms?) To do that our hypothetical person would probably have to think of the political spectrum as fixed, not relative and moving with social history so that yesterday's extremely partisan "leftist" position (women should have the right to vote!) is today's "centrist" consensus view. Same position bad back then because it was "partisan," but ok now because it is not? One would have to answer yes if "partisanship" is in itself bad.
A person who believed that might frequently dismiss others arguments as "extreme" and "laughably partisan," without even reading or hearing them, by simply assigning them a place on the spectrum, a source deemed "left" or "right"--e.g., "That documentary was offered by Netflix" or "that article is from the "far left" Guardian." And he could do so without thinking such actions in themselves betokened extreme bias/partisanship. A nifty short cut around critical thinking and responsible argument. No need to demonstrate he understands anything--except labels as currently given by some news sources (and not likely "centrist" ones).
Can't test this though until I find someone out there given to bias-hunting and label-based dismissals while avoiding demonstration, some virulently "non-partisan" person who deploys terms like "extremist" and "partisan" unreflexively. Someone deeply invested in self-defining as "centrist."
RE: Covington High School Issue - BFritz21 - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you must be confused. Perhaps you need to go back and read my posts in this thread. I never said that. I will not address this again unless you post a quote from me saying that. I am glad to take part in any debate, but I am notgoing to argue about what I did or did not say when there is a quote function for you to use.It was in this thread, and you said Sandmann created the conflict by not moving. Not moving or getting into his face, you definitely said he created the conflict, so it's kind of irrelevant whether you said not moving or getting into his face because you're still placing the blame on him:
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Stepping aside to let the Native American pass would in no way be a "surrender of his rights".
The question is why create a conflict when there is no need? If he had no problem with the native American then why not just step aside and let him pass? What point was the boy trying to make? With that smug smile he comes off looking like an asshole refusing to move for no reason other than to create a conflict.
Many other times in the thread you blame him for not moving, which is the same as getting into his face.
I FOUND IT!!!!!
The Bigzoman posted this:
Quote:Except Phillips went directly into the crowd to play the drumb in the boy's face.
And then you posted this:
Quote:No he didn't.
Why in the world would he pass through an entire crowd to pick out this one random boy who was doing nothing?
And why was that one random boy the only one who did not move aside to let him pass. The boys own words are "I didn't see anyone try to block his path" yet that is exactly what he did when the man reached him.
Why didn't he step aside just like everyone else did?
If you're claiming that Native American didn't approach him, then he must have approached the Native American. And please don't say that you were just saying that you meant that he should have just moved because there was a group of students in back of him, so was Phillips trying to walk into the middle of them? Why would he do that? That group of kids wasn't in the shouting match with the black men.
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes there is. I already posted the video showing that the young men were all around him. Again, if you have a video that shows that he was not surrounded please post it.I ALREADY HAVE!
They were on the sides of him and in front of him, not surrounding him! He also walked into their group, so they didn't even actively get on the sides of him!
We went through all of this already!
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. If I said they surrounded him I just meant they were all around him. I did not mean they actively approached and surrounded him. The original video shows that the young men were all around him. That is what I meant by "surrounding" him.Ha!
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I may have said that all of them were chanting and whooping, but I never said that "all" or "a majority" were doing the chop. Again I will not argue about this until you post a quote of me saying what you claimed I said. It is ridiculous to argue about what I said when there is a quote function.
Ok, you said "some of them," which implies more than the two or three that were doing it because then you would have just said "a few" or even "two or three."
Quote:The native did nothing to incite an incident. He just walked up playing his drum. He was not yelling or screaming or anything. The students went into some hokey American Indian type chant and some of them even started doing the tomahawk chop to mock him.Walking up to a teen and playing a drum in his face, while having a very serious (even hostile) look on his face isn't being aggressive?
I didn't use the quote function because I didn't think that you'd deny posting these things.
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Neither you nor I know what they were thinking. I am not going to argue about something that neither of us have any way of proving.
Like I said, we're a tight community around here, so word gets around, and my cousin was even in the group, so I feel pretty confident in saying that I know what they were thinking.
Also, if they were trying to be disrespectful/make fun of him/cause a dispute, why would they run off chanting "get on the bus" as soon as the bus got there?
You even tried to claim that the kid that took off his shirt and was leading the Rocky cheer, which he does at all sporting events, was trying to intimidate the NAs or Israelites!
RE: Covington High School Issue - fredtoast - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes there is. I already posted the video showing that the young men were all around him. Again, if you have a video that shows that he was not surrounded please post it.
(01-31-2019, 07:42 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I ALREADY HAVE!
Sorry I missed it. What post number?
Let me make this simple for you. You have been spinning around incircles claiming I said stuff I didn't then saying that even though I never said it that I meant it. Then you tried to claim this poor boy was pinned and could not move. So let me start over and make my position clear.
The young men were yelling back and forth with the African Hebrews (or whatever they are). I could not make out everything they said but at one point they were using the same chants and tactics they use to try and intimidate and prove their superiority over their opponents at sporting events. The Native American walks into the crowd of young men and they part t let him pass. However when he reaches Sandman he refuses to move and "stands his ground". The other young men surround them and some of them start making offensive gestures like the tomahawk chop and mock him with a phony "Indian whoop" or chant.
The original video was deceptive and made it look much worse than it was, but the fact is that if Sandman just stepped aside like everyone else did there would not have been a confrontation. I don't see any indication that Phillips specifically targeted Sandman, but if you claim he did why did he? What had Sandman done to draw the Natives attention?
In the end no one got violent. It was just a bunch of teenage boys acting out like teenage boys. I think the chaperons should have done a better job keeping them under control, but again, it was not that big of a deal. There was no fighting or spitting or cursing.
The media reported on the first video they received that looked bad. Even the Bishop of the school condemned the actions of the boys. But when addition videos cam out all of them that I saw also reported on those and gave both sides of the story.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Belsnickel - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Dino is going to back off the irony charge until he sees you go after some disgusting right wingers and their ilk, or at least back off right wing definitions of "the left" and throw up SOME of your angry bias charges against their media and politics. And I think he knows conservatives can disagree with conservatives without pushing anyone to the center so that defense is a fail.
In the meantime, I think we can grant you a unique label to fit your unique place on the political spectrum. As a nationalist defender of the 2nd Amendment who is wary of the dangers posed by Islam the religion, but who can't be a rightist because he is not a Republican and doesn't support Trump (however much you may attack "leftist" Trump critics) why don't we call you a
NATIONAL CENTRIST?
I bet Dino would go along with that. I'd like to see him prove you are not.
According to the research, most "independents" are closet partisans, anyway. So it doesn't much matter.
RE: Covington High School Issue - GMDino - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 09:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: According to the research, most "independents" are closet partisans, anyway. So it doesn't much matter.
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c53925a6c75464f67299460]](https://media2.giphy.com/media/26ufdjDss12dwPO5W/giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c53925a6c75464f67299460)
RE: Covington High School Issue - michaelsean - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Dino is going to back off the irony charge until he sees you go after some disgusting right wingers and their ilk, or at least back off right wing definitions of "the left" and throw up SOME of your angry bias charges against their media and politics. And I think he knows conservatives can disagree with conservatives without pushing anyone to the center so that defense is a fail.
In the meantime, I think we can grant you a unique label to fit your unique place on the political spectrum. As a nationalist defender of the 2nd Amendment who is wary of the dangers posed by Islam the religion, but who can't be a rightist because he is not a Republican and doesn't support Trump (however much you may attack "leftist" Trump critics) why don't we call you a
NATIONAL CENTRIST?
I bet Dino would go along with that. I'd like to see him prove you are not.
Well you’ve had to have paid attention for all the years we’ve been together in this happy place. SSF doesn’t like any monotheistic religion, but at this point has a heightened mistrust of Islam. Pro choice. Was pro gay marriage before Hills or Barack. That’s a few.
RE: Covington High School Issue - GMDino - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well you’ve had to have paid attention for all the years we’ve been together in this happy place. SSF doesn’t like any monotheistic religion, but at this point has a heightened mistrust of Islam. Pro choice. Was pro gay marriage before Hills or Barack. That’s a few.
Interesting. Also doesn't mean he's not partisan.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Dill - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Interesting. Also doesn't mean he's not partisan.
Means he's a NATIONAL CENTRIST.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Dino is going to back off the irony charge until he sees you go after some disgusting right wingers and their ilk, or at least back off right wing definitions of "the left" and throw up SOME of your angry bias charges against their media and politics. And I think he knows conservatives can disagree with conservatives without pushing anyone to the center so that defense is a fail.
I'd be thrilled to be able to back off right wing definitions of "the left". However, since trump was elected "the left" has played right into those definitions.
Quote:In the meantime, I think we can grant you a unique label to fit your unique place on the political spectrum. As a nationalist defender of the 2nd Amendment who is wary of the dangers posed by Islam the religion, but who can't be a rightist because he is not a Republican and doesn't support Trump (however much you may attack "leftist" Trump critics) why don't we call you a
NATIONAL CENTRIST?
I bet Dino would go along with that. I'd like to see him prove you are not.
Oh wow. Your evidence of me being right wing is that I actually respect the United States Constitution and don't treat it as a buffet where I pick and choose what is, and is not, important. Also, I dislike the most oppressive ideology currently practiced on this planet outside of North Korea. Muslim majority countries are overwhelmingly anti-gay, misogynistic and are intolerant of any other belief system. Isis, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram (literally "books are forbidden" for you kafars) are all perfect examples of the dangers posed by the current practice of Islam in many places. You don't like this characterization? Well talk to muslims who aren't busy returning your wallet and tell them to sort their fellow muslims out.
(01-31-2019, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well you’ve had to have paid attention for all the years we’ve been together in this happy place. SSF doesn’t like any monotheistic religion, but at this point has a heightened mistrust of Islam. Pro choice. Was pro gay marriage before Hills or Barack. That’s a few.
Shhhhh, you're actually making me more progressive then their "progressive" heroes. This won't do. I'm a gun toting, Trump supporting, Confederate flag waiving, wife slapping right winger because I don't subscribe to their every tantrum about Trump and actually point out how they frequently come off as ridiculous.
Remember kids, ideological purity is necessary or we will list you as "other"!
RE: Covington High School Issue - Belsnickel - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Shhhhh, you're actually making me more progressive then their "progressive" heroes. This won't do. I'm a gun toting, Trump supporting, Confederate flag waiving, wife slapping right winger because I don't subscribe to their every tantrum about Trump and actually point out how they frequently come off as ridiculous.
Remember kids, ideological purity is necessary or we will list you as "other"!
See, I get to keep my liberal card because I just ignore those particular conversations most of the time.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Dill - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 09:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well you’ve had to have paid attention for all the years we’ve been together in this happy place. SSF doesn’t like any monotheistic religion, but at this point has a heightened mistrust of Islam. Pro choice. Was pro gay marriage before Hills or Barack. That’s a few.
LOl an understatement. And I would add a heightened mistrust of some entity called "the left," opposition to which is de rigeur on the right, not so much the center.
Can one list some liberal stances and some conservative ones and then say a person who checks a few from each is therefore a "centrist"?
Some issues are far more defining than others. And people are far more committed to some than others. When push comes to shove, and one has to choose between keeping gay marriage legal and giving up one's semi-automatic rifle, what then?
That's why I like to look at what people do, where they invest their political energy. What if someone claimed to accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but was more prone to attack environmentalists rather than Trump and big oil? I'd wonder about that, especially if that behavior continued over a range of issues, until one had quite a resume of attacks against "leftist" Trump opponents but little against pro-Trump issues and Trump supporters/defenders, of whom we have plenty in this forum. What stops our centrist friend from wading into threads about Trump's wall or his policy on illegal immigrants and demonstrating his non-right bona fides?
RE: Covington High School Issue - Belsnickel - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:55 PM)Dill Wrote: LOl an understatement. And I would add a heightened mistrust of some entity called "the left," opposition to which is de rigeur on the right, not so much the center.
Can one list some liberal stances and some conservative ones and then say a person who checks a few from each is therefore a "centrist"?
Some issues are far more defining than others. And people are far more committed to some than others. When push comes to shove, and one has to choose between keeping gay marriage legal and giving up one's semi-automatic rifle, what then?
That's why I like to look at what people do, where they invest their political energy. What if someone claimed to accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but was more prone to attack environmentalists rather than Trump and big oil? I'd wonder about that, especially if that behavior continued over a range of issues, until one had quite a resume of attacks against "leftist" Trump opponents but little against pro-Trump issues and Trump supporters/defenders, of whom we have plenty in this forum. What stops our centrist friend from wading into threads about Trump's wall or his policy on illegal immigrants and demonstrating his non-right bona fides?
I really think that SSF's issue is that he is in California. California liberals are a special breed and they have really ruined him. Were he here in Virginia, I bet he'd fit right in at my local Democratic committee meeting.
RE: Covington High School Issue - jason - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really think that SSF's issue is that he is in California. California liberals are a special breed and they have really ruined him. Were he here in Virginia, I bet he'd fit right in at my local Democratic committee meeting.
I've seen Nancy Pelosi's face so I kinda get the different breed comment. In what other ways are they a different breed though?
RE: Covington High School Issue - GMDino - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really think that SSF's issue is that he is in California. California liberals are a special breed and they have really ruined him. Were he here in Virginia, I bet he'd fit right in at my local Democratic committee meeting.
I think you might be half right. But then he'd tell me I was wrong.
If someone feels "their" party is awful to the point they openly stand against it and support a guy like Trump maybe they should move?
RE: Covington High School Issue - Belsnickel - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 11:14 PM)jason Wrote: I've seen Nancy Pelosi's face so I kinda get the different breed comment. In what other ways are they a different breed though?
Well, for one, the biggest issue that SSF seems to have (beyond the irrationality towards Trump) with liberal policy is the attitude towards the Second Amendment. California, and a few other states, take that much further than liberals in some other states. This isn't to say there aren't some lawmakers that will try to pass some of the same stupid stuff, but the rural areas have a strong enough contingency that they can't go far enough.
Liberals in my neck of the woods are pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, and pro-gun. We hunt, we fish, we farm, and we fight for individual rights.
Though in all seriousness, maybe we're the different breed.
RE: Covington High School Issue - Dill - 01-31-2019
(01-31-2019, 10:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be thrilled to be able to back off right wing definitions of "the left". However, since trump was elected "the left" has played right into those definitions.
Oh wow. Your evidence of me being right wing is that I actually respect the United States Constitution and don't treat it as a buffet where I pick and choose what is, and is not, important. Also, I dislike the most oppressive ideology currently practiced on this planet outside of North Korea. Muslim majority countries are overwhelmingly anti-gay, misogynistic and are intolerant of any other belief system. Isis, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram (literally "books are forbidden" for you kafars) are all perfect examples of the dangers posed by the current practice of Islam in many places. You don't like this characterization? Well talk to muslims who aren't busy returning your wallet and tell them to sort their fellow muslims out.
Shhhhh, you're actually making me more progressive then their "progressive" heroes. This won't do. I'm a gun toting, Trump supporting, Confederate flag waiving, wife slapping right winger because I don't subscribe to their every tantrum about Trump and actually point out how they frequently come off as ridiculous.
Remember kids, ideological purity is necessary or we will list you as "other"!
LOL Doubtful someone who thinks "the left" has played into right wing definitions since Trump was elected can simply back off said definitions. Nothing to replace them with.
You can hop from thread to thread asserting that this "left" has somehow become a mirror image of the right, and that's why you are always attacking it, but you can neither demonstrate what you are claiming, nor explain why there is never any energy left over to attack the right for balance. Repeatedly calling others "biased," "partisan" and "ridiculous" establishes nothing more than that you disagree, without explaining why.
In the past you have several times claimed others twist your words and impute positions to you that you don't hold; it would be rather inconsistent if you frequently do what you accuse others of doing, especially if you can never seem to prove others twist what you say.
So after reaffirming your "actual respect" for the U.S. constitution, followed by your dislike of "the most oppressive ideology currently practiced on the planet outside North Korea," followed by a hyperbolic defense against all kinds of things of which you have never been accused--all a rather bad defense of "centrism," non-partisanship, and ideological impurity--could you perhaps calm down a little, shed the red herrings, and devote just a little time and space to demonstrate where I've called for or held people to "ideological purity"? You've had some trouble defending bald assertions like that in the past, unable to muster more than argument from sensibility. Another flurry of defensive hyperbole won't do the trick. Nor will ad hominem and other forms of adjectival argument. Show us the posts which establish your claim, or leave it empty.