Proof black lives don't matter - the execution of Philando Castile (30 page TL;DR added to OP)

[agent00f]

The "you're a racist" line. I do not despise him for that. You're a liar.

Please ignore me.

You should take your own advice, instead of lying about it repeatedly as everyone expects of conservatives.

Also it's just a matter of fact that race realists like yourself uniquely despise LBJ as a race traitor.

 

[HomerJS]

You are incapable of being rational about this. I don't think that at all and you should know it. Or maybe you're just a liar.

You're getting as bad as Trump. Can't remember shit you said days ago.

 

[glenn1]

Sick sad world we have. I think this kid's just confused about what need to be done to fix the problem. He's bought the libertarian line and hasn't seen how this perspective is never actually enacted, but instead only used to bludgeon the poor - big government that makes rich people richer never goes away under republicans.

A lot depends on what you consider the actual problem to be. If it's excess use of violent force against civilians by police (especially blacks) then your solutions will be much more limited almost by definition. For example your idea to not arm cops in some circumstances such as routine traffic stops might be a good start. And giving firm and a bright line guidance for when lethal force by police is authorized and legal would help even more. I think we can all agree that the "officer feared for his safety" standard is completely unworkable and leads to lots of dead people without the needed accountability for police.

However if the problem we are trying to solve is systemic bias and "pre-judging" by police than the solution will be much more nebulous, her to achieve, hard to measure, and perhaps unachievable within the limited confines of police violence against civilians. I think the constraints are just too great to adddres that bigger issue within the smaller scope. Reduction in police use of force would be an outcome of that larger effort not the entire solution itself.

 

[buckshot24]

You're getting as bad as Trump. Can't remember shit you said days ago.

I didn't say anything like that. You're wrong. Your emotional and unreasonable approach makes you see things that aren't there.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I didn't say anything like that. You're wrong. Your emotional and unreasonable approach makes you see things that aren't there.

Just this week Republicans seek to give 100k+ tax cuts to 1 out of 1000 people by doing what they know will lead to 62 out of 1000 people not having medical coverage any more.

just want to be clear. You can 1) want to help a group of people and 2) support policies that do the opposite; you just have to not see how 2 is true, or presently be in a state of cognitive dissonance. I don't see how you don't see 2 as true, I am asking for an explanation.

You got nothing, you are noting, you are self-deluded at best, and an obvious liar at worst. You lose.

 

[interchange]

Just this week Republicans seek to give 100k+ tax cuts to 1 out of 1000 people by doing what they know will lead to 62 out of 1000 people not having medical coverage any more.

just want to be clear. You can 1) want to help a group of people and 2) support policies that do the opposite; you just have to not see how 2 is true, or presently be in a state of cognitive dissonance. I don't see how you don't see 2 as true, I am asking for an explanation.

You got nothing, you are noting, you are self-deluded at best, and an obvious liar at worst. You lose.

Firstly, I don't remotely support the AHCA/Senate healthcare bill. I think that we ought to go much farther in the direction of expanding Medicare/Medicaid.

That said, I also do not fault someone for arguing that even the wealthy or corporations ought to have a tax rate closer to the non-wealthy. The bar is unequal. It is obviously fallacious to move the bar past equality, but independent of any idea of trickle-down, promotion of the economy by reducing corporate taxes, etc., simply believing that people who have earned their money ought to be able to keep it -- or at least keep more of it -- is not inherently bad. To say this should never happen is saying that the needle can only be allowed to move in one direction. And there is a name for where the needle would be moving toward: communism.

 

[agent00f]

Firstly, I don't remotely support the AHCA/Senate healthcare bill. I think that we ought to go much farther in the direction of expanding Medicare/Medicaid.

That said, I also do not fault someone for arguing that even the wealthy or corporations ought to have a tax rate closer to the non-wealthy. The bar is unequal. It is obviously fallacious to move the bar past equality, but independent of any idea of trickle-down, promotion of the economy by reducing corporate taxes, etc., simply believing that people who have earned their money ought to be able to keep it -- or at least keep more of it -- is not inherently bad. To say this should never happen is saying that the needle can only be allowed to move in one direction. And there is a name for where the needle would be moving toward: communism.

Socialism and communism are proposed as future societies a la the broader arc of Hegalian history, states humankind will naturally reach once people become enlightened enough much as capitalism was progress from feudal societies. This is evidently the case given the progression of western society since the enlightenment. Whether humans will ever reach that point is of course an open question, but it's also clear enough the constituent members holding everyone else back atm.

You're confused about these subjects much like your peer because you read about them from conservative media instead of the academic text.

 

[interchange]

Socialism and communism are proposed as future societies a la the broader arc of Hegalian history, states humankind will naturally reach once people become enlightened enough much as capitalism was progress from feudal societies. This is evidently the case given the progression of western society since the enlightenment. Whether humans will ever reach that point is of course an open question, but it's also clear enough the constituent members holding everyone else back atm.

You're confused about these subjects much like your peer because you read about them from conservative media instead of the academic text.

I am reading this and understanding that your desired political/economic system is socialist/communist. Is this correct?

 

[agent00f]

I am reading this and understanding that your desired political/economic system is socialist/communist. Is this correct?

They're simply the result of sufficiently enlightened humans, much as faster cars were the result of more powerful engines. As a student of the enlightenment I tend to value that progress it proposes, even if perpetually backward people benefit from it.

 

[interchange]

They're simply the result of sufficiently enlightened humans, much as faster cars were the result of more powerful engines. As a student of the enlightenment I tend to value that progress it proposes, even if perpetually backward people benefit from it.

Can you answer directly please?

 

[agent00f]

Can you answer directly please?

I basically informed you why the question is ignorant, so please take some time to figure it out.

 

[interchange]

I basically informed you why the question is ignorant, so please take some time to figure it out.

I think by definition questions classify as either ignorant or rhetorical. Are you suggesting I ought to only ask you questions I already know the answer to?

But, regardless of method, I am asking you to directly state your stance. Not the justification for the stance. The stance itself. I do not want to engage in discussion where I am imputing details even if they seem apparent.

 

[agent00f]

I think by definition questions classify as either ignorant or rhetorical. Are you suggesting I ought to only ask you questions I already know the answer to?

But, regardless of method, I am asking you to directly state your stance. Not the justification for the stance. The stance itself. I do not want to engage in discussion where I am imputing details even if they seem apparent.

That's hardly the ignorance meant but rather the sort displayed in asking "why does the 2 pound coin only weigh 0.02 pounds"?

If you keep assuming communism or such was meant to be normative there's simply no understanding why measures of currency differ from weight.

 

[Roflmouth]

A lot depends on what you consider the actual problem to be. If it's excess use of violent force against civilians by police (especially blacks) then your solutions will be much more limited almost by definition. For example your idea to not arm cops in some circumstances such as routine traffic stops might be a good start. And giving firm and a bright line guidance for when lethal force by police is authorized and legal would help even more. I think we can all agree that the "officer feared for his safety" standard is completely unworkable and leads to lots of dead people without the needed accountability for police.

No "we" can't, better luck lying next time.

 

[Roflmouth]

Just this week Republicans seek to give 100k+ tax cuts to 1 out of 1000 people by doing what they know will lead to 62 out of 1000 people not having medical coverage any more.

Yes, who do those Republicans think they are, that tax money belongs to you!

 

[interchange]

That's hardly the ignorance meant but rather the sort displayed in asking "why does the 2 pound coin only weigh 0.02 pounds"?

If you keep assuming communism or such was meant to be normative there's simply no understanding why measures of currency differ from weight.

You are berating me for asking you for clarification. Things like this make you unpleasant. I just want to understand better for what you are advocating. I'm not attempting to engage in any disagreement and yet you make conflict out of it. I don't feel inclined to go down this road again.

 

[agent00f]

No "we" can't, better luck lying next time.

LOL @ friendly fire. glenn will cover for your racism and this is how you repay him.

 

[agent00f]

You are berating me for asking you for clarification. Things like this make you unpleasant. I just want to understand better for what you are advocating. I'm not attempting to engage in any disagreement and yet you make conflict out of it. I don't feel inclined to go down this road again.

If you read the sentences carefully, like look up what normative means, the answer is sufficiently clear. These more advanced economic systems are the result of sufficiently advanced participants, as in they don't work with a bunch of inbred simpletons like roflmouth/buckshot or arguably even you. Same as efficiently powerful engines cannot be created with very loose tolerances.

You're basically asking someone explaining how greenhouse gases effect the climate whether or not they're fans of global warming. It's an entirely stupid question and you appear motivated to never figure out why.

 

[interchange]

If you read the sentences carefully, like look up what normative means, the answer is sufficiently clear. These more advanced economic systems are the result of sufficiently advanced participants, as in they don't work with a bunch of inbred simpletons like roflmouth/buckshot or arguably even you. Same as efficiently powerful engines cannot be created with very loose tolerances.

You're basically asking someone explaining how greenhouse gases effect the climate whether or not they're fans of global warming. It's an entirely stupid question and you appear motivated to never figure out why.

I don't understand the utility of your arguments then. You are arguing how things ought to work under an idealized set of conditions that you recognize do not exist. And I couldn't imagine any realistic scenario where they would ever exist, but maybe you disagree and can make your case about how that future may be possible.

In the meantime, we live in a world full of people extremely far from enlightenment. Maybe you could share what you think is best for this world and why.

 

[agent00f]

I don't understand the utility of your arguments then. You are arguing how things ought to work under an idealized set of conditions that you recognize do not exist. And I couldn't imagine any realistic scenario where they would ever exist, but maybe you disagree and can make your case about how that future may be possible.

In the meantime, we live in a world full of people extremely far from enlightenment. Maybe you could share what you think is best for this world and why.

No, the central point is that this is the exact opposite of a normative/"ought" argument, and unfortunately you simply don't understand how any scientific arguments work. The climate isn't one way or the other because it "ought" to be, it is as a result/culmination of preceding factors.

The economic systems we implement, eg capitalism, is a result of one such factor among many, a certain education level. If that factor and others changed, it reasons the range of viable systems would also, just as capitalism can come to be once people understood how to use money in certain self-interested ways. Or current redistributive social democracies under these western k-12 regimes of liberal arts. As more folks become educated to the faults of capitalism and underlying reasons why as the upcoming gen increasing are, they might eventually move onto something else. That's simply the nature of things clear enough to anyone interested in how nature works.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

LOL @ friendly fire. glenn will cover for your racism and this is how you repay him.

I love watching evil people tear one another to shreds. Come on, you degenerate bastards, let's see some flying blood!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Firstly, I don't remotely support the AHCA/Senate healthcare bill. I think that we ought to go much farther in the direction of expanding Medicare/Medicaid.

That said, I also do not fault someone for arguing that even the wealthy or corporations ought to have a tax rate closer to the non-wealthy. The bar is unequal. It is obviously fallacious to move the bar past equality, but independent of any idea of trickle-down, promotion of the economy by reducing corporate taxes, etc., simply believing that people who have earned their money ought to be able to keep it -- or at least keep more of it -- is not inherently bad. To say this should never happen is saying that the needle can only be allowed to move in one direction. And there is a name for where the needle would be moving toward: communism.

All economic systems are commanded - the only question is, how much of the command is by the corporate lords and how much by the people. Interestingly both sides claim they seek the betterment of the people - and both are right. Government often intrudes on the individual for no good reason, and corpor

Yes, who do those Republicans think they are, that tax money belongs to you!

I was being used to keep
People from dying... sick mind worm you have.