US riots
Re: Minneapolis riots
Not familiar with sarcasm?n0el wrote:????Dolan wrote: It's probably not enough to avenge the death of a suspect that resisted arrest because he got caught passing counterfeit money. There needs to be more. What am I saying, the whole world needs to burn for the death of George Floyd. You know, things need to get to the point of civil war and tens of more deaths to maybe come close to being enough.
Re: Minneapolis riots
Dolan has a unique form of postingchris1089 wrote:Not familiar with sarcasm?n0el wrote:????Dolan wrote: It's probably not enough to avenge the death of a suspect that resisted arrest because he got caught passing counterfeit money. There needs to be more. What am I saying, the whole world needs to burn for the death of George Floyd. You know, things need to get to the point of civil war and tens of more deaths to maybe come close to being enough.
mad cuz bad
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: Minneapolis riots
Despite telling you not to, you are constantly engaging in nitpicking and bad faith arguments. This is turning out to be a ping pong discussion rather than productive one. For sake of this discussion and my sanity I will in precise point form explain my thoughts below. I expect you to not continue nitpicking and bad faith arguments.Vinyanyérë wrote:What I said was that there was no universal list of demands made by protesters. There absolutely are protesters that know what they want and there have been attempts to establish dialogue. Can you point to the specific place where you attempted to show that violently suppressing both protests and riots would not have the reverse effect of emboldening both? I will accept for now you have attempted to show that it isn't possible to suppress protests without accompanied riots. As a counter, here's an example: In Redwood City, CA, a protest was conducted for several hours largely without incident (one arrest was made). Part of the reason that there were no major incidents at the protest likely stem from the police presence being mild (there were a few officers present, but their gear was their normal day-to-day gear and they did not form any line) and from city officials taking part in the protest directly. The protest began at 16:00 and ended at 20:30 when a county-wide curfew was put in place. In this way, a protest happened and rioting was violently suppressed (although from what I've seen, no rioting in Redwood City happened anyway).*princeofcarthage wrote: If you read carefully I responded to all 3 of them. What you make is a good point and what I hope happens. That is a different thing though. So, you are just reiterating what I said, protesters have no clue exactly what they want, neither they have made any attempt to establish dialogue and/or kick start discussions.
*This isn't to say that I'm in favor of the curfew; however, it is an instance of successful suppression of riots without an accompanied suppression of protests.
This ignores the throwing of rocks as an explicit example you gave which has the pretty unambiguous goal of harming someone or causing property damage. With flash bang grenades and tear gas, there's two things going on: first, not all of the grenades and gas are thrown into the air, there are numerous instances of them being thrown at people with the explicit intent of doing exactly what those devices are designed to do. Second, even if they were thrown into the air with the intent of dispersing the crowd by scaring them, the fact that the crowd is scared puts members of it in danger from, for example, trampling.princeofcarthage wrote: It doesn't matter whether it is tear gas or flash bang, the point matters not the word or weapon used. Throwing a grenade/gas () at person to hurt him and throwing it in air to scare crowd into disbursing is different. The intent obviously matters. I don't remember under what exact conditions but people kill horses to avoid them pain. That doesn't mean violence or make you a violent person. It is an act of mercy.
Finally, there's two levels of intent here. One level is very simplistic: is this act trying to cause harm on someone else? The other is more complex: what is this act trying to do? The latter helps us figure out whether an act is morally justified or not, but the definition you provided is not concerned with that level. It's solely concerned with whether or not there's an intent to cause harm or not, which throwing rocks, stun grenades, and tear gas all unequivocally do. Would you like to use a different definition of violence?
So let's zoom out. You claimed that "there was no such thing [as rioting and looting] during HK protests". I responded by pointing out that there was and gave you an example, and you responded by claiming that there were a a small number of these. I gave multiple examples, and you responded by saying that these incidents were isolated in scope and shut down by police or protesters when they appeared. I gave an example of organized violence by protesters against police, and you responded by saying that it was an instance of violence by police against protesters. I pointed out that the example does indeed contain an instance of violence by protesters against police, and you're now saying that the police started it.princeofcarthage wrote: [various HK stuff]
Of course the police started it!
I'm not making a claim that the activists in Hong Kong are morally unjustified in being violent towards their police, I'm arguing against the claim that there is no violence at all. That's your original claim.
Even with this, though, I can easily find instances of violent actions taken by HK activists against police and property that other protesters were clearly complicit in. Here's one example (warning: bad takes and Chinese govt. propaganda in the comments):
And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that anyone in this video is doing anything wrong. I'm just claiming that they're committing violence. The key is that violent acts are not necessarily immoral acts.
1) Protesters are leaderless and mostly without a demand. Sure, smaller communities might have their list, and few might implement it at local level but broader national level reforms are needed.
2) Congress (from what I read) is already bringing bills to reform.
3) I don't deny protests are a not a bad thing. Riots however are.
4) Rioters, looters, criminals are all opportunistic people who are disguising themselves as protesters. Given the currrent scenario it is not possibly to distinguish Protesters from rioters. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive at this point.
5) My post was intentionally delayed. Between that you can see at least info of 4 deaths on both sides on ESOC and probably more if we scour the media.
6) It is clear that collateral damage in form of life and property is unavoidable at this point.
7) If all the attention is constantly diverted to this, it also possess a far greater risk to security than simply internal riots.
8) Also let us not forget C-19 which alone is a good enough reason for this to end.
9) Difference between HK and these is that there was far less to none collateral damage. Violence was largely limited between protesters and suppressors, which again was largely initiated by suppressors.
10) This also has far reaching effects on security, law and order and what future holds which we haven't but others members in the thread have discussed again and again.
11) Lets also not forget that all this senseless killing and looting is ruining what the main aim for what protests started in first place. There is chance that they maybe forever tainted. I don't know how looting of 200 Apple stores brings justice to Floyd.
12) Given all these circumstances it is absolutely imperative that protests be brought to a swift end until such time when they can be peacefully carried out again.
This is not to say that entire discussion had been ping pong. I agree that violence shown by you in HK is more than I had already known about. However there is a stark difference between violence in US and HK. I am not giving my opinion but violence between people protesting and people who are they protesting against is "..." (I don't know the proper word to use but I hope you get the point).
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
- Vinyanyérë
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Aug 22, 2016
- ESO: duolckrad, Kuvira
- Location: Outer Heaven
- Clan: í íì°ì€
Re: Minneapolis riots
princeofcarthage wrote: Despite telling you not to, you are constantly engaging in nitpicking and bad faith arguments. This is turning out to be a ping pong discussion rather than productive one. For sake of this discussion and my sanity I will in precise point form explain my thoughts below. I expect you to not continue nitpicking and bad faith arguments.
1) Protesters are leaderless and mostly without a demand. Sure, smaller communities might have their list, and few might implement it at local level but broader national level reforms are needed.
2) Congress (from what I read) is already bringing bills to reform.
3) I don't deny protests are a not a bad thing. Riots however are.
4) Rioters, looters, criminals are all opportunistic people who are disguising themselves as protesters. Given the currrent scenario it is not possibly to distinguish Protesters from rioters. Meaning they are not mutually exclusive at this point.
5) My post was intentionally delayed. Between that you can see at least info of 4 deaths on both sides on ESOC and probably more if we scour the media.
6) It is clear that collateral damage in form of life and property is unavoidable at this point.
7) If all the attention is constantly diverted to this, it also possess a far greater risk to security than simply internal riots.
8) Also let us not forget C-19 which alone is a good enough reason for this to end.
9) Difference between HK and these is that there was far less to none collateral damage. Violence was largely limited between protesters and suppressors, which again was largely initiated by suppressors.
10) This also has far reaching effects on security, law and order and what future holds which we haven't but others members in the thread have discussed again and again.
11) Lets also not forget that all this senseless killing and looting is ruining what the main aim for what protests started in first place. There is chance that they maybe forever tainted. I don't know how looting of 200 Apple stores brings justice to Floyd.
12) Given all these circumstances it is absolutely imperative that protests be brought to a swift end until such time when they can be peacefully carried out again.
This is not to say that entire discussion had been ping pong. I agree that violence shown by you in HK is more than I had already known about. However there is a stark difference between violence in US and HK. I am not giving my opinion but violence between people protesting and people who are they protesting against is "..." (I don't know the proper word to use but I hope you get the point).
So thereâs three ongoing threads of discussion that we have:
- The necessity of suppressing all peaceful protests, riots, and looting in the U.S. vs. alternatives
- What qualifies as violence
- The presence of violence in Hong Kong
- Determine what claim you are making, get clarification on your statements, and understand the definitions you are using in these claims. AND
- Provide necessary conditions that you would need to fulfill in order for me to accept your claim, and provide counters when I find your attempts to fulfill those conditions unsatisfactory. OR
- Determine what necessary conditions that I would need to fulfill in order for you to accept my claim.
You agreed that this was your claim within the context of the current U.S. incidents. Thatâs good, we established a claim that I was able to clarify and that I also disagreed with. So I gave you three necessary conditions that you would need to demonstrate before I could accept your claim. I gave caveats that these might be necessary and not sufficient and that I wouldnât necessarily agree with the prescriptive claim (that this should be done) even if it were true, but I gave some things that I would need to see.VinyanyĂ©rĂ« wrote: So your claim is that once protests move from a peaceful state to a mix of peaceful protests and rioting, the only way to move them back to a peaceful state is to violently suppress all protests until no more of them happen, and then to allow peaceful protesting again?
In your first response to that, you didnât provide what I asked, instead opting to provide an unrelated claim. Afterwards, you provided incomplete attempts to demonstrate what I asked for; I offered counters to the points you made and asked for you to complete what I asked for. So far, you have not done so, and so I am not required to accept your claim.
In the second thread, I havenât been able to figure out what your claim is. You started by saying âP and Q are not violenceâ, I rejected this, and you said âunder this definition of violence, R is violenceâ. I responded by pointing out that we were discussing the claim âP and Q are not violenceâ and that under your provided definition R would indeed qualify as violence, and I attempted to ask additional clarification on what you consider to be violence. You then gave âQ and R are not violence because of their intentâ, and I responded by pointing out that weâre still discussing P, and that, per the definition you gave, intent as youâre describing it is not a factor, and so Q and R would qualify as violence.
This isnât an attempt to nitpick, Iâve been trying to figure out what your claim is and arguing how various things qualify as violence under the definition you provided. However, I still have not been able to determine your claim here, as you have multiple times changed the acts that weâre discussing, and seem to be using a different definition of violence than the one that you provided. You arenât providing sufficient clarity on the terminology or the position you are taking and so I am not required to accept your claim.
In the third thread, you initially took the claim that there was not rioting and looting during the Hong Kong protests and I took the negation. Since then, I have not been able to figure out what your claim is, as, like in the second thread, it seems to have modified over time and as I have provided additional evidence. I have successfully taken the negation of each of your claims by providing evidence. I have multiple times asked you to give me necessary conditions that I need to fulfill for you to accept any of these positions, and you have not done so. Since you have not provided me with a consistent position nor have you given me any reasonable conditions that I need to fulfill, I am not required to accept your claim.
All of the numbered points that you put in your post are not interesting to me because they are tangentially related or not related to the above positions that I am either attempting to show, attempting to get you to show, or attempting to get you to clarify. Please donât accuse me of nitpicking or making bad faith points, and if you are going to, please provide evidence of that rather than simply saying that it is true.
duck
imo
imo
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Minneapolis riots
Man technical language really sucksh ass
Re: Minneapolis riots
There is a protest on Sunday in the middle of Suffolk (a rural county) in the UK.
Re: Minneapolis riots
The Hobbiton resistance will never surrender!chris1089 wrote:There is a protest on Sunday in the middle of Suffolk (a rural county) in the UK.
We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the you know, you know the thing.
Re: Minneapolis riots
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
Re: Minneapolis riots
US Riots - Change the title to thisGoodspeed wrote:It's your thread. The title is yours to choose. I'm not in the business of editing people's posts or titles because there is a chance I'll misrepresent them.007Salt wrote:If that title is more relevant then I'm all for it. I'll let you decide @Goodspeed but I think it is at this point.Show hidden quotes
Re: US riots
Wait, it's not possible to change your own title?
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US riots
Crooked staff out of touch with the users!Goodspeed wrote:Wait, it's not possible to change your own title?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: US riots
This country is the pinnacle of civilization
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: US riots
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: US riots
@iNcog agreed. Quotas so stupid for police. Like what, firefighters need to have a certain number of fires put out per week too?
c0ns!
- Mr_Bramboy
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8219
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: [VOC] Bram
- Location: Amsterdam
Re: US riots
What about quotas prescribing a minimum amount of blacks or women within corporate boards?iNcog wrote:Quotas should be removed and made illegal.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: US riots
They intend and accomplish two different things. Hardly the same.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: US riots
Yeah man this is such a poor comparison...
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: US riots
Less women in STEM fields, put more in!
Less men in healthcare, put more in!
Not enough women CEOâs, put more in!
Not enough women construction workers, put more in!
Not enough young senators, put more in!
Less men in healthcare, put more in!
Not enough women CEOâs, put more in!
Not enough women construction workers, put more in!
Not enough young senators, put more in!
c0ns!
Re: US riots
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US riots
Quotas like that have such a sad side-effect of being the most hardcore form of discrimination possible on the short term. I have a friend who finished two master degrees and did a pretty good job there, was doing an internship at this company and doing a good job there. I asked him if he thought they would hire him. He answered me that he thought it was really unlikely, because they were looking for either minorities or women. I get that the quota is supposed to counteract some bad things, but my friend is getting discriminated so fucking hard here.
And yes, I know that minorities face this sort of discrimination permanently, but that sort of discrimination isn't part of the law.
And yes, I know that minorities face this sort of discrimination permanently, but that sort of discrimination isn't part of the law.
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: US riots
Lmao bigotry. I agree with not getting sidetracked here. Give me a break with bigotry though. I donât give a shit about quotas and thatâs bigotry?
K, done with this. But throwing out shit like that is just stupid. âBigotâ âfascistâ âracistâ donât even mean anything now. They are so loose
And I like educational quotas to an extent. No problem there.
K, done with this. But throwing out shit like that is just stupid. âBigotâ âfascistâ âracistâ donât even mean anything now. They are so loose
And I like educational quotas to an extent. No problem there.
c0ns!
- vardar
- Lancer
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Jul 3, 2015
- ESO: VardarB98/DemonDeacs
- Location: us of a
Re: US riots
Oh you donât like high taxes? Bigot!
You donât like quotas? Bigot!
You think military spending is crucial? Bigot!
You think oranges are better than apples? Bigot!
You donât like quotas? Bigot!
You think military spending is crucial? Bigot!
You think oranges are better than apples? Bigot!
c0ns!
Re: US riots
Unfortunately even educational quotas are bad. It hurts the people it's supposed to help. 80% percentile students end up at 90% colleges, etc so they targeted group ends up struggling more than if they had gone to a college targeted at their level.
It doesn't help the student if they go to Cambridge or Harvard when they can't keep up.
It doesn't help the student if they go to Cambridge or Harvard when they can't keep up.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests