+- 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)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I say "society".
Does it upset you that society has renounced Jim Crow laws, slavery, and other racists policies?
I mean, who was the last "openly racist Presidential candidate" before Donald Trump?
Do you get a bonus every time you reference Jim Crowe and Nazi in this forum?
But you are correct. Society has changed.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always get a good laugh when your side of this debate uses that example. It's patently absurd. Oh wait, are you saying that the protests are actually the first stages of a civil war and thus all the violence is justified?
No. What I am doing is using an extreme example to prove the fault of your logic. It is a pretty common tactic. These riots do not have to be the first stages of s Civil War to show that your logic is faulty.
(09-07-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If racial hatred was justification for a violent response then every Jew has a right to attack any member of the Nation of Islam. Is that what you're advocating?
The protestors are not hunting down people who carry the Confederate Flag. they are protesting against a regime that welcomes the racial hatred symbolized by the Confederate Flag.
And if we had a President from the Nation of Islam who supported the extermination of Jews then, yes, I would understand why they might resorted to violent protests when a few of them start getting killed by the state.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you get a bonus every time you reference Jim Crowe and Nazi in this forum?
Just trying to "preserve history". You are a champion of that cause aren't you?
(09-07-2020, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But you are correct. Society has changed.
Who was the last "openly racists Presidential candidate" before Trump?
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just trying to "preserve history". You are a champion of that cause aren't you?
Who was the last "openly racists Presidential candidate" before Trump?
I guess it depends on what qualifies as openly racist. it appears you've set the bar at some supporters are, but the man is not:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
Quote:Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
But folks looking for fault instead of truth will go with the "Good people on both sides" sound bite.
So using your standard I'll say Barrack Obama was the last openly racist President due to his association with Jeremiah Wright and others.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. What I am doing is using an extreme example to prove the fault of your logic. It is a pretty common tactic. These riots do not have to be the first stages of s Civil War to show that your logic is faulty.
Fred's examples are logical, SSF's are faulty. Got it.
Quote:The protestors are not hunting down people who carry the Confederate Flag. they are protesting against a regime that welcomes the racial hatred symbolized by the Confederate Flag.
Protesting is fine, attacking people, looting and burning buildings down is not.
Quote:And if we had a President from the Nation of Islam who supported the extermination of Jews then, yes,
Ohhhhh, the violence has to based on the words of the POTUS, and then, and only then, it's OK. Got it.
Quote:I would understand why they might resorted to violent protests when a few of them start getting killed by the state.
The vast, vast majority of police shootings are justified. Even the vast majority of the ones that were not were based on poor judgment, not deliberate execution. You use very extreme rhetoric that literally sounds like it come out of the "Rules For Radicals" playbook.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But folks looking for fault instead of truth will go with the "Good people on both sides" sound bite.
Trump is a compulsive liar. It is impossible for me to believe this renunciation of racism when I see so many other blatantly racist actions and comments like.
--Claiming Mexican immigrants are diseased criminals.
--Can't trust a federal judge to be fair because of his Mexican heritage.
--A black woman who was born and raised in America should go back to "the country she came from".
--Sharing a video of his supporter yelling "White Power".
--Lying about his relationship with David Duke instead of condemning him as a leader of the KKK.
--Welcoming the Confederate Flag at his rallies.
Let me ask you this. If you believe Trump really was condemning racism then why is he still so beloved by the KKK and White Nationalists? I say it is because they don't care if he makes a statement condemning racism as long as his actions continue to be racists. Same way corporate executive don't care if he makes statements about supporting "the working man" as long as his actions keep benefitting corporate profits instead of the middle class.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump is responsible for suggesting Obama was born outside of the US. I merely took exception with he's the one that started it and it's one of the reasons for the violent protests. I blame the folks violently protesting for violent protests. That's where we differ.
The issue was this:
(09-06-2020, 09:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You ask a lot of questions but have no other answer than "because Trump". The Left were extremely violent leading up to the 2016 election, you cannot deny that; nor can you make up that Trump cultivated it; it was already there. Many called Obama the Great Divider; perhaps there was something to it.
Bottom line: You cannot accuse Trump of cultivating something that was happening before he was ever elected. The millennials came to age around 2006-2016. This generation was brought up on the internet and they consider themselves socially awoken. They are highly educated (do read intelligent) and absorbed great debt to get there. The Left offered them everything they wanted and when it was threatened they got mad and when they didn't get it they lost their minds.
I reminded you that birtherism is part of the "cultivation" of division, and it came BEFORE Trump was ever elected. There was no claim Trump "started it," only that he made it his signature theme years before actually running for office. And since "leftist" refused to "go low" as Trump did, the Hillary whatabout does nothing to refute the point. It only contrasts the difference in ethical standards between the campaigns.
Let's see if we can at least agree Trump Trump DID, in fact, introduce racist claims about Obama into the national political discourse BEFORE he was elected. Once that is established, we can move to the question of whether stirring up whitelash absolves him from any responsibility for violence, racial or anti-racial, during his presidency.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred's examples are logical, SSF's are faulty. Got it.
Yes. Exactly. I used a factual example to prove the flaw in your logic.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ohhhhh, the violence has to based on the words of the POTUS, and then, and only then, it's OK. Got it.
No. I never said anything like that. I was just talking about the words and actions of a President because that was the discussion we were having and you started to go off on some tangent about the protestors attacking people who carried Confederate Flags.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. Exactly. I used a factual example to prove the flaw in your logic.
Sure, Fred.
Quote:Thank you for the acknowledgement.
You are very welcome!
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. I never said anything like that.
Well, if one actually reads what you wrote then, yes, yes you did.
Quote:I was just talking about the words and actions of a President because that was the discussion we were having and you started to go off on some tangent about the protestors hunting down people who carried Confederate Flags.
Incorrect, "hunting" was the word used by you. I didn't use it because its use is inaccurate, I mean the antifa guy hunted the Trump supporter he killed, but the Trump supporter wasn't carrying a Confederate flag. I said attacked. Hunting and attacking are not synonyms.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The vast, vast majority of police shootings are justified. Even the vast majority of the ones that were not were based on poor judgment, not deliberate execution. You use very extreme rhetoric that literally sounds like it come out of the "Rules For Radicals" playbook.
And the vast majority of protests across the country have been peaceful. I believe Bels posted research that showed about 90%.
You use very extreme rhetoric that literally sounds like it came out of the "Rules For Radicals" playbook.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, if one actually reads what you wrote then, yes, yes you did.
Then use the quote function to show it.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect, "hunting" was the word used by you. I didn't use it because its use is inaccurate, I mean the antifa guy hunted the Trump supporter he killed, but the Trump supporter wasn't carrying a Confederate flag. I said attacked. Hunting and attacking are not synonyms.
I will change the word from "hunting" to "attacking", but if you think that changes the meaning of my comment in any way then you completely missed the point I was making.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always get a good laugh when your side of this debate uses that example. It's patently absurd. Oh wait, are you saying that the protests are actually the first stages of a civil war and thus all the violence is justified?
Fredtoast Wrote: No. What I am doing is using an extreme example to prove the fault of your logic. It is a pretty common tactic. These riots do not have to be the first stages of s Civil War to show that your logic is faulty.
Fred's examples are logical, SSF's are faulty. Got it.
Yes, Fred's examples are logical. And you couldn't refute his argument with a thousand emoticons.
One tests definitions and principles by applying them to diverse examples to see if they hold.
If you claim the WWII example is "patently absurd" as a test of the claim violence is never justified, then you have simply dismissed any requirement for logical consistency. In effect you are saying violence is never justified for select actors in situations you specify, but you are hiding the very selective character of your application with the claim of universal application.
If violence is never acceptable in causing political change then the American Revolution was illegal. If you think that violence was acceptable in that Revolution, then you cannot say, as a universal principle, that violence is "never" an acceptable solution to political conflict. This was also the thrust of Bels' objections based on the example of union protests.
Recognizing that violence is in fact justified at times is not to claim that it always is. This is not a black/white, either/or issue. But the assertion that "violence is never justified" is simply impractical, a principle that has not been thought through and could never lead to a coherent legal or political policy. It's only practical value it could ever have is to hide selective ("biased' in your terminology) definition/application behind assertions of ("unbiased") universality.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And the vast majority of protests across the country have been peaceful. I believe Bels posted research that showed about 90%.
You use very extreme rhetoric that literally sounds like it came out of the "Rules For Radicals" playbook.
Way more than 90% of law enforcement's interactions are peaceful. By this logic no one has anything to protest.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I will change the word from "hunting" to "attacking", but if you think that changes the meaning of my comment in any way then you completely missed the point I was making.
Yu don't know the difference between hunting and attacking? Very logical.
(09-07-2020, 02:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, Fred's examples are logical. And you couldn't refute his argument with a thousand emoticons.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Way more than 90% of law enforcement's interactions are peaceful. By this logic no one has anything to protest.
Not if the 10% are almost never punished. Not if there are a larger % that get covered up. Not if the 90% don't speak out against the 10%.
Careful..."masks" and all that.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-07-2020
(09-07-2020, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not if the 10% are almost never punished. Not if there are a larger % that get covered up. Not if the 90% don't speak out against the 10%.
Careful..."masks" and all that.
Yeah, all those Portland protesters that the DA refuses to file charges against.
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 09-07-2020
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-speaks-by-phone-to-man-shot-by-police-in-wisconsin/ar-BB18N4hF?ocid=msedgntp
Wasn't this the same woman that was front and center during the Kavanuagh hearing talking about "I believe her"? Now she visits the family of a man accused of sexual assault and arrested by breaking into her house violating a PPO the lady had filed against him.