|
Post by dasfuchs on Dec 18, 2010 22:34:52 GMT -5
No it doesn't. Only listening to one side of the story creates unwarranted sympathy for one side and unwarranted animosity towards the other. YOU are guilty of this. Wanting to hear both sides before making up your mind is how you get an even and unbiased viewpoint. Yes. That's what a trial is for. Or are you suggesting that we convict people based solely on the word of the arresting officers without hearing the accused's side of the story?Bullshit. That's a strawman and you know it. We criticize the government all the time. This thread is next door neighbor to several threads criticizing actions of the government, as well as threads praising actions of the government. We praise the government when it deserves it and criticize the government when it deserves it. But first we want the whole story. YOU are the one with a dogmatic viewpoint ruled by an outside authority. Being opposed to everything the authority says and does, you are no less a slave to it's will than someone who automatically agrees with everything the authority says and does. Cracked illustrated this concept quite well.P.S. The question in bold is a direct question and I expect an answer as per forum rules. We're talking about a court of public opinion, not a court of law. If they were actually on trial (which will never happen), then of course they should be able to defend themselves. However, I can't imagine what they could possibly say to justify it and the "let's hear what they have to say" sounded very much like the cry of the brutality apologist. As to the whole who is more religious thing, you belong to a specific sect of the government religion, namely the Church of Liberalism. Just like RR criticizes Catholics, you criticize devotees of competing government cults such as the Tea Party. And I'm not really much of a non-conformist, or an anarchist in any sense of the word. I'm also not blindly anti-authority. I deeply respect people like Thomas Jefferson and Ron/Rand Paul who were or are in high positions of power and do good things with them. I also deeply respect cops who have the courage to belong to the Oath Keepers. Ladies and Gents...I present SkyfireII
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 18, 2010 22:35:41 GMT -5
I'm not exactly liberal or conservative. What government religion do I blindly follow?
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Dec 18, 2010 22:57:59 GMT -5
Skyfire, you are a fucking lunatic. Hell, I even agree with you that the cops are in the wrong here. I don't think all cops are evil and they don't think that cops are always in the right.
Really the church of liberalism? So liberals are pro police and anti-protestors? It was liberals who hosed down blacks in the civil rights era, liberals that beat anti war protestors? No it was the liberals protesting their government.
The people of the boards who believe the protestor are in the wrong simply disagree that it's an issue worth getting violent over, and I mostly agree with them, though i have a harder time time feeling sympathy for blue-blood aristocrats.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 18, 2010 23:01:44 GMT -5
Blah blah blah blah cops and government who aren't oathkeepers suck and my proof is that i say so blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah You're stupid. I'm not even going to bother in debating you, because you do not follow any form of debate rules. You make strawmen, you ignore arguments posed against you because you don't have answered, you spout argumentative points that have been debunked countless times, and yet you somehow are convinced that you're correct. Here's the facts: You're not correct. You're not correct about cops, about government, about anything. You are incorrect. You are so incorrect it HURTS. And you've been shown that, but you refuse to see it. The only thing that I can conclude, then, is that you're stupid. Also, you make some of the stupidest, homophobic remarks and then claim that you're not a homophobe. Debating with you is pointless. Talking with you is pointless. I hope that a police force saves your life one day so you can feel shame for everything you've ever said about them.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 18, 2010 23:17:29 GMT -5
AA, you should adhere to the burden of proof no matter what "court" you're in or what you're talking about. The reason many legal systems use it is because it goddamn makes sense. Take the above post, for instance. It's a great speech & all, but it's not super persuasive to me because it doesn't actually show any evidence of you being a 'tard.
And what the Hell is an oathkeeper? I keep thinking of Kingdom Hearts.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 18, 2010 23:19:45 GMT -5
AA, you should adhere to the burden of proof no matter what "court" you're in or what you're talking about. The reason many legal systems use it is because it goddamn makes sense. Take the above post, for instance. It's a great speech & all, but it's not super persuasive to me because it doesn't actually show any evidence of you being a 'tard. And what the Hell is an oathkeeper? I keep thinking of Kingdom Hearts. TBF, I'm not really concerned with obeying the laws of anything and more concerned about releasing steam because of his stupidity. So, don't take my post too seriously. Also, an oathkeeper... it was explained in another thread and I can't be arsed to look for it because my care level is so low it's practically non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Dec 18, 2010 23:30:25 GMT -5
We're talking about a court of public opinion, not a court of law. Which is exactly what we're doing to these cops. I know you don't like the courts, and sure, they're not perfect, but they're trying to be impartial, and they have rules designed to ensure impartiality. But that's kinda beside the point. So because YOU can't imagine what they could say in their defense, they don't deserve to have their side heard at all? Who made you judge and jury? Oooooooor... I have a complicated and ever-evolving belief-set based on life experiences, upbringing, education, observation and deep reflection that happens to coincide on most issues with liberal ideology. But noooooooo, that wouldn't fit into your dogmatic, black & white world view. So you say. Your posts on this board indicate otherwise. Edited to remove the direct questions, since I know you won't answer them in any meaningful way anyway, so what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 19, 2010 0:06:20 GMT -5
Points for "church of liberalism" that one made me crack a smile. It's been a while since you're approached funny.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 19, 2010 0:49:07 GMT -5
AA, you should adhere to the burden of proof no matter what "court" you're in or what you're talking about. The reason many legal systems use it is because it goddamn makes sense. Take the above post, for instance. It's a great speech & all, but it's not super persuasive to me because it doesn't actually show any evidence of you being a 'tard. And what the Hell is an oathkeeper? I keep thinking of Kingdom Hearts. Sonspiracy theorists who believe that the government is currently engaged in WHARGABLE*! and who refuse to participate in WHARGABLE! * Either perfectly legitimate orders (states of emergency and the like) or not actually occuring at all.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 19, 2010 0:50:46 GMT -5
Zachski: You were just kind of a convenient example. I don't have any actual problems with your post, I'm just saying that, sans context, I would be all, "WTF is this shit?"
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 19, 2010 1:26:20 GMT -5
Zachski: You were just kind of a convenient example. I don't have any actual problems with your post, I'm just saying that, sans context, I would be all, "WTF is this shit?" Ah. I'm kind of literal minded, so... yeah. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 19, 2010 1:29:36 GMT -5
Skyfire, you are a fucking lunatic. Hell, I even agree with you that the cops are in the wrong here. I don't think all cops are evil and they don't think that cops are always in the right. Really the church of liberalism? So liberals are pro police and anti-protestors? It was liberals who hosed down blacks in the civil rights era, liberals that beat anti war protestors? No it was the liberals protesting their government. The people of the boards who believe the protestor are in the wrong simply disagree that it's an issue worth getting violent over, and I mostly agree with them, though i have a harder time time feeling sympathy for blue-blood aristocrats. I am well aware of the once noble movement that is left wingedness. Liberal Daily Kos types were some of the people I used to agree with most on almost everything. Then Obama got elected and suddenly everything changed. Police brutality, PATRIOT Act, torture, unwarranted secrecy, domestic spying, and even war is suddenly alright as long as it's the liberal's war (Afghanistan) and the liberal's president at the helm. As it turns out, political parties are more like football teams to the average person. People are supporting their side regardless of policy (Of course it goes without saying that the GOP side does this a lot too).
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Dec 19, 2010 1:31:17 GMT -5
AA, you should adhere to the burden of proof no matter what "court" you're in or what you're talking about. The reason many legal systems use it is because it goddamn makes sense. Take the above post, for instance. It's a great speech & all, but it's not super persuasive to me because it doesn't actually show any evidence of you being a 'tard. And what the Hell is an oathkeeper? I keep thinking of Kingdom Hearts. Oath Keepers are law enforcement officers of unparalleled courage and honor who pledge to refuse any unconstitutional orders to unnecessarily restrict freedom of the people.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Dec 19, 2010 1:36:50 GMT -5
Liberals are saying that stuff is alright? Not any liberals I know. Most liberals I know (including myself) are at least a little disappointed with Obama, if not a lot. You either have no idea what liberals even think and say or you're being deliberately ignorant. You're just attacking straw men, and as long as you do, you're not going to have the least bit of credibility.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Dec 19, 2010 1:39:21 GMT -5
According to the AA dictionary, the words "honor" and "courage" are defined as "Believing the same bullshit as me."
|
|