PDA

View Full Version : 2017 America


brandon9
January 22nd, 2017, 09:51 PM
This has so many truths in it, this guy is right about a lot of shit. I'm sure it'll offend a majority of ROTW, but hey, freedom of speech and belief!

o6KRV85r2BI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6KRV85r2BI

Flapjack
January 23rd, 2017, 12:51 PM
What's the debate?

brandon9
January 23rd, 2017, 01:48 PM
Flapjack whether he's correct! I believe he makes several very good points in this video.

Mars
January 23rd, 2017, 02:22 PM
Flapjack whether he's correct! I believe he makes several very good points in this video.

What are the several points and why do you agree with them?

Falcons_11
January 23rd, 2017, 03:58 PM
The best was that "ass whipping" thing! How many of you have really gotten a real good ass whoopin'?

Flapjack
January 23rd, 2017, 05:22 PM
The best was that "ass whipping" thing! How many of you have really gotten a real good ass whoopin'?
Hopefully no one on here but unfortunately some are still subjected to it because of misinformation on corporal punishment and people ignoring facts.

Porpoise101
January 23rd, 2017, 06:59 PM
I disagree with nearly the whole message. I think it is oversimplified. But it is only meant to be a short, fast-pased video I guess. The guy seemed pretty antagonistic though. His fanbase in the comments is even worse somehow (when aren't they). Overall, pretty dumb vid.

The main thing I balked at was when he said "...instead of spending hours on the Internet...", as if his whole career isn't based on losers wasting away online. Only reason he pointed the liberals out is because they are liberal though.

Maybe the biggest issue I have with not just this video, but many, is that it's all about peddling ideology. He's just another pundit trying to sell his brand. Whether left or right, if you follow these types of bloggers/vloggers/personalities/'news commentators' you are getting misinformed and fleeced.

ThisBougieLife
January 23rd, 2017, 07:15 PM
As soon as I can re-contort my face into its pre-cringe state, I can respond. (He said "cuck"; oh dear Lord, he said "cuck"...)

Ah, yes, there we are.

What this video represents is this sort of prevailing attitude among some people, the "PC GONE MAD!" crowd who see the modern era as "pussified" for reasons that are often overstated, mischaracterized, and just plain false. Most of the examples he cites are somewhat disconnected and incoherent; for example, I don't see a woman who chooses to not shave her body hair or bathe and wanting to be "special" for doing so as some kind of representative of modern feminism. There are criticisms to be made of modern feminism, but that isn't one. As Porpoise says, this is just pandering. It brings nothing new to the table; he basically just summarized YouTube comments and spit out a video of their "content". The only thing I agreed with was that "black lives matter" is more than just stating it; it has to be shown as well. But "black lives matter" is not also an issue of black people proving their worth (and as the video suggests, failing at doing so, because they're so violent as a race); it's a reminder that black lives inherently matter, no more or no less than the lives of any other race.

If this "side" wishes to be taken seriously, they can perhaps offer more than just edge. Your original post is a case and point there.

Peace.

Living For Love
January 24th, 2017, 05:22 AM
He is right about a lot of points, unfortunately.

The initial part about racism is something we all acknowledge, yet just pretend to ignore. Most cases of detention of black people by police are not due to racism, it's because they're criminals who happened to be black. It would be good if this guy actually presented evidence or statistics on what he's stating, but I wouldn't be surprised if more crimes were committed by black people, considering the ratio of white/black people in a given community, at a given time, than white people. Or the number of black people with criminal record. Criminality is intrinsically associated with black people, they take pride on their "thug life" and "fuck the police" lifestyle. The case about the kids who tortured the disabled boy is one of the many examples that show the superiority complex black people have, that exempts them from being labelled racists when in fact, they are indeed the true racists. Terrorists organisations such as BlackLivesMatter could actually follow his advice and show why their lives should matter, considering someone somewhere said they didn't.
Black lives matter, white lives matter too. Criminals, rapists, murders and robbers lives matter? Meh, not so much.

About the complaining social justice warriors, well, they're just complaining, no harm doing that. About the feminists, it's pretty much the same, they're causing no harm to anyone (or changing anything for the better at all).

Porpoise101
January 24th, 2017, 04:25 PM
Most cases of detention of black people by police are not due to racism, it's because they're criminals who happened to be black.
The left POV is that racism is the initial reason that black communities are worse-off than white ones statistically. Following this, the fact that so many black men turn to crime has to do with historically and continuing racist attitudes and actions. I won't get to in depth into the issue of profiling and jury selection, but there is that aspect to consider as well.

Is the predicament of the urban poor due to a bad history or due to a bad culture? Lefty would say former, righty would say latter. Me, I say it's mostly the latter, but I won't deny the bad attitudes of many. But think about why that attitude developed. It didn't just show up after all.

This is getting off topic, but just from this one issue you can see how this guy didn't really give the issue the whole consideration that is needed in this video.

PlasmaHam
January 24th, 2017, 05:54 PM
I am against videos in general that simply start spouting political or cultural nonsense and demands that people conform to their viewpoint despite not saying anything factual. I really don't take videos like this seriously, from both the Left and Right. Both sides are guilty of it, this guy in particular reminds me of the Buzzfeed News Year Resolution video that got a ton of flack. This video has the distinct lack of actual comedy and the extreme pushing of ideology that it is borderline cringe for me.

I am agree ThisBougieLife on the PC beginning to stem from those on the Right. The ironic thing, is that the Right's PC stems out of annoyance with the Left's PC. Nowadays if you have any opinion other than Hardcore Conservative, some will call you Un-American, pussy, pushover, unmanly, and other words I'll rather not say. Those titles are occasionally true, but just like the Left overuses racism, the Right often overuses these words. I sure hope this stays contained in the Alt-right and doesn't continue to spread.

I'll attempt to do a point-by-point analysis of the video later on. The cringe is still pretty high and I don't have the time.

brandon9
January 25th, 2017, 08:59 PM
What are the several points and why do you agree with them?

I apologize for taking a while to reply, but here goes. And before I say anything, I will address what Porpoise101 ThisBougieLife PlasmaHam said about the video itself - yes, videos like this should never be used as actual information sources, however the underlying ideaologies in them can be interpreted and discussed. That's the goal I will try to reach here, that the ideas are examined. They arent all inaccuracies.

1) Black Lives Matter - I have always maintained that the Black Lives Matter movement is as cringeworthy a movement as any in the history of the United States. It's simply a front for promoting more racism, and promoting violent actions like riots, things he points out in the video. Fact is, ALL lives matter, not just those of blacks. It's a ridiculous notion to it's very core, and if the people supporting this movement actually had a head on their shoulders, they'd see it causes more actual harm to the community they claim to want to better than it actually fixes.

2) Police Racism - As someone in school to be in the field of criminal justice, I cannot apologize for my view on this. A large percentage of criminals are black males. This is a fact. And taking that into account, the odds of an officer encountering a black male committing a crime is statistically higher than that of encountering a white male committing a crime, in certain localities across the nation. The police are not racist, they are not "out to get" the black community - it is simply a fact of life that a lot of crime in this country is committed by people of this ethnicity, especially in urban areas. I admit there are some rogue racist officers, but 99% of your police force is not, and the ones who ARE discriminatory are typically removed well before anything untoward happens. There's a model called the Community Policing Model in which the job of law enforcement is to cooperate with and improve the community in reducing crime, this is the application of most departments across the country today. Their goal is to help people, not discriminate, inflame, and kill the black community.

3) The "Fuck Trump" Incident - he is absolutely, irrefutably correct when he says if four white kids harassed a special needs black kid and made him say "Fuck Obama", it would be a hate crime. The double standard on "racial hate crimes" is sickening in this country, it's only a hate crime if you are not white.

4) Social Justice Warriors - not even gonna tackle this one.

5) Colleges - while I don't find the view that colleges "make kids dumber" entirely accurate, I do find the underlying message that college campuses are overwhelmingly politically charged (in favor of Democrats by and large) an important one. It is true.

6) Refugees - we should not allow refugees in here from any country, not just the middle east. We need much stricter vetting processes, greater definition of duration allowances for these people to stay, the elimination of birthright citizenship (so when these refugees have a kid over here they can all go back home together after their allowed refuge time has expired without the child being a US citizen with no clue what it means), and really we just need to improve domestically first and foremost. It is not the job of the United States to play peacemaker and global moderator.

7) Feminism - this is another issue that takes extremes in society. I get that in certain aspects of say the job market and such, women are underappreciated and underpaid, but we also need to be realistic here - in manual labor professions, men are getting paid more than women because they can better perform manual labor, men are physically stronger, sorry but that's the truth. If the man is more equipped to perform that task, naturally gifted with strength or not, he deserves more money for the ability to perform. Also, for say women in politics or business - there will be a female president, and there are MANY female business executives in the US. Sorry, Hillary was just not the woman for America.

8) Sex - sorry folks, he's right, you've either been born with a penis or a vagina. That's nature, that's how the world works. No ifs, ands, buts, or changes to that fact. It doesn't change. If you were born with a penis and identify as a woman, I'm sorry, you are still a biological male created the way nature intended, same goes in reverse.

9) Coddling - I am actually ashamed at the way my generation is shaping to turn out as a whole. He's right - everyone is told by fucking everyone that we are special and the world is good and owes us this and that, fuck that shit. Its a lie. Nobody owes any of us anything, we make our own way in this world, if you don't work and bust your ass for what you want then you don't deserve what you have. Plain and simple, and I think a majority of this generation is in for a VERY rude awakening when they hit the real world and see that it isn't nice.

10) Spanking - I will say I don't agree with him on beating children, however simple spanking in my opinion is not a totally bad thing. I was spanked if I was bad as a kid, I turned out alright, it teaches you. Hell, people spank each other for sexual arousal - that's not considered domestic abuse, is it? Disciplinarily spanking your child within the realm of reason is not child abuse, child abuse is punching and kicking and hitting with objects.


Hopefully this post clarifies my stance on this video and the views contained and expressed within.

mattsmith48
January 26th, 2017, 01:35 AM
He's just sitting there whining about how women, gays and blacks having so many advantages over white people, blaming them for everything that is going wrong in his live, and those liberals,''they're so annoying disproving my bullshit with facts and wanting everyone to be treated equally.''

Black lives matter all they are asking for is for the police to stop murdering unarmed black men at disproportionate rates.

Feminist all they want is equal opportunity as men, get equal pay for equal work and being able to do whatever the fuck they want with their body.

Refugees all they want is a better live and get away from their war torn country and terrorism

Socialist all they want for everyone to be able to have everything they need to live without having to worry about the cost and be treated equally.

Transgenders all they want is being accepted for who they are.

College doesn't make people dumber they make them poorer, and the reason your kids are dumb is because your education system is run by religious nuts who deny science and facts.

brandon9
January 26th, 2017, 02:16 PM
He's just sitting there whining about how women, gays and blacks having so many advantages over white people, blaming them for everything that is going wrong in his live, and those liberals,''they're so annoying disproving my bullshit with facts and wanting everyone to be treated equally.''

Black lives matter all they are asking for is for the police to stop murdering unarmed black men at disproportionate rates.

Feminist all they want is equal opportunity as men, get equal pay for equal work and being able to do whatever the fuck they want with their body.

Refugees all they want is a better live and get away from their war torn country and terrorism

Socialist all they want for everyone to be able to have everything they need to live without having to worry about the cost and be treated equally.

Transgenders all they want is being accepted for who they are.

College doesn't make people dumber they make them poorer, and the reason your kids are dumb is because your education system is run by religious nuts who deny science and facts.

I don't know what it is about your posts involving anything political that just seriously amuse the hell out of me, but thanks for whatever it is you're doing lmao. Debating with you is a totally different beast than debating with any other person on this site, requires a special mindset so I've learned.

I'm gonna try to point out all the errors in your post as politely and concisely as I possibly can, in order, below.

First, police aren't murdering unarmed black men at disproportionate rates. The absolute last resort in police work is lethal force, police just don't walk around saying "I'm gonna find myself a young black male and shoot him today," that's ridiculous. Again, these are the people trying to STOP crime, not engage in it. If an officer shoots and kills somebody, it is either because their life was threatened directly or because the lives of bystanders were in jeopardy. I point out again, as I did in my last post, that a high percentage of criminals are black males, it is proven time and time again. If you really want to talk about a problem with black males being murdered, I'd suggest you maybe study up on the homicide rates in Chicago; surprise, black on black crime. Gang related. Ridiculously high homicide rate, more than New York and Los Angeles combined, AND the city is already on track to surpass its own record set last year. Maybe Black Lives Matter should appeal to the black community there - it sure as hell isn't the police doing all the killing!

Feminists argue some very illogical points, I'm sorry. As I said before, in professions dependent on manual labor, a woman can't perform as efficiently as a man, it is scientifically (since you like science) proven that men are stronger than women. Therefore, the man should be entitled to higher salary. Same goes for a number of professions. Look at what women can do now that they couldn't years ago - vote, live alone, own property, win just about any custody battle on the planet, enter the military or law enforcement, hold executive positions, run for office... Need I go on? Women are every bit afforded equal opportunities to men, sometimes far superior opportunities depending on specific circumstances.

Here's a point about refugees, and I'm gonna make it and you will absolutely hate it but this is reality. Imagine that your country is war torn and filled with terrorists. You have two options: flee and place burden on another country you have no intention of becoming a citizen of, or stand up and fight to retake your homeland and fix the problem. I'm already sure of what your solution would be, but for me, I would not leave this country if a third World War was fought entirely on our soil - I would find a cause, and fight to the fix the fucking problem. That's what these refugees don't understand - the problems they want fixed won't fix themselves, and it is not the duty of any other nation to fix them either. These people need to stand up for what they want and work toward solutions to their problems instead of running from them in the hope that someone else will clean up the mess they left behind. Be part of the solution, don't create a problem for another nation by fleeing here.

Not sure where you draw socialism here, but socialism is not a productive system and isn't ever going to be.

Transgenders, aka the issue that is impossible to talk about without being labeled as intolerant. I firmly maintain my stance (supported in the video) that there are two BIOLOGICAL (there's that science stuff again!) sexes - male and female. You are born as one or the other, you cannot choose this, nature develops you the way you were meant to be developed. You state, separately from this issue yet equally applicable, that we deny science and facts, so therefore by your own logic, the entire concept of transgender denies both of those, and as such, you should not be supportive of it. That deconstruction aside, sex isn't determined by your mental state. The fact that sex change is even a medical procedure actually baffles me, you are altering what was meant to be and creating a host of societal issues in the process - take for example the bathroom crisis. I'm not letting someone who is clearly a man enter a woman's restroom if my friend or sister or even mother is in there, sorry but you were born with a penis and you use the bathroom for people who have a penis. Call it intolerance, call it what you want, but sex does not change, it was never meant to.

I'm honestly confused as to what the hell you even mean in the part about education, but here goes my stab at this; first, I already pointed out that college doesnt make kids dumber. Second, I'm pretty sure (100.01% in fact) that our schools arent run by religious nuts, see there's this wonderful thing called law that prohibits expression of religious ideology in the public school systems - you may teach world religions but you may not promote one or another, it must be unbiased. As such, the ONLY inclusion of religion is found in specific curriculums for world history or religions courses, should schools offer them. It is entirely illegal for a teacher or administrator to push religion, just as it is illegal to incorporate grander religious ideals into designed curricula. This is why schools cannot display the Ten Commandments for example. So, point is, religion is kept pretty locked down in public schools here. Private schools, however, are entirely different, as they are not constitutionally bound in the same ways as public schools are. And, final parting note, as someone who has taken biology 3 separate times (honors, AP, and Dual Enrollment) as well as earth science, forensic science, chemistry, and astronomy, I'm pretty sure we arent denying scientific facts here. Science classes are incredibly detailed, especially at the AP and college levels.

bentheplayer
January 26th, 2017, 04:12 PM
Transgenders, aka the issue that is impossible to talk about without being labeled as intolerant. I firmly maintain my stance (supported in the video) that there are two BIOLOGICAL (there's that science stuff again!) sexes - male and female. You are born as one or the other, you cannot choose this, nature develops you the way you were meant to be developed. You state, separately from this issue yet equally applicable, that we deny science and facts, so therefore by your own logic, the entire concept of transgender denies both of those, and as such, you should not be supportive of it. That deconstruction aside, sex isn't determined by your mental state. The fact that sex change is even a medical procedure actually baffles me, you are altering what was meant to be and creating a host of societal issues in the process - take for example the bathroom crisis. I'm not letting someone who is clearly a man enter a woman's restroom if my friend or sister or even mother is in there, sorry but you were born with a penis and you use the bathroom for people who have a penis. Call it intolerance, call it what you want, but sex does not change, it was never meant to.


I am just too tired and lazy to elaborate fully on this. The extent of ignorance on such common basic issues simply astounds me. Please read up on gender dysphoria also known as gender identity disorder. Since it is classified under ICD and by doctors I would think that it is science? Its under F64 for ICD-10. There are also cases of intersex babies with ambiguous external genitalia too. So if intersex is biological then are these people male or female or both?

So is this about intolerance or ignorance?

Porpoise101
January 26th, 2017, 05:37 PM
1) it causes more actual harm to the community

How is calling for a better, more fair criminal justice system harmful? How is advocating for transparency and oversight a bad thing?

2) 99% of your police force is not, and the ones who ARE discriminatory are typically removed well before anything untoward happens. There's a model called the Community Policing Model in which the job of law enforcement is to cooperate with and improve the community in reducing crime, this is the application of most departments across the country today. Their goal is to help people, not discriminate, inflame, and kill the black community.

I agree with this. However, in the high profile (and non-high profile) cases we see, the officer is acquitted without even standing trial in a court of law. If that keeps happening, then you probably begin to wonder why.

Maybe you'd be surprised by this but the official BLM organisation is a firm supporter of Community Policing as well. Maybe you guys have more in common than you think.

3) The "Fuck Trump" Incident

It was classified as a hate crime within a day. Not even a point to be had here.

5) college campuses are overwhelmingly politically charged (in favor of Democrats by and large) an important one. It is true.

And why wouldn't it be? I'm sorry but this is such and over-represented issue. Most of the super PC universities are private, meaning they can do what they want. Public ones have to be more levelheaded in general. And when have students as a whole been really excited by conservative values? Think about it; which party is actually trying to make an effort to really pander to young people? (hint: it is the party that Bernie almost became the nominee for)

6) Refugees - we should not allow refugees in here from any country, not just the middle east.

International law forbids that right now. This is really extreme stuff here. Refugees also put more into the country's economy than they take within a few years. In the short-run, yes, they take up resources. But once they acclimate, they become productive, safe people. Unlike Europe, we actually have a decent vetting system that filters out people connected to terrorists and criminals.

As a response to your most recent post, I'll use your example against you. Imagine it's 1936 and the Nazis take power in Germany, and freedom-loving Germans flee to the US to escape repression. Do you take them in? If yes, what's the difference? The refugees could be Nazis after all. If no, why not? They are fleeing to escape, not cause issues.

the elimination of birthright citizenship

Like I was saying, extreme. Birthright citizenship makes sense because American culture is extremely pervasive. People who grow up here become Americans, because if you don't you live in a slum forever.

7) Feminism - men are physically stronger

For a conservative, you don't seem too keen on merit. If a woman is stronger than a male candidate, she should get the job. Besides, how important are manual labor jobs anyways to the whole economy and the distribution of jobs as a whole? I'd guess they are far from the most important (but not unimportant). There is a difference in opportunity between men and women, and especially between men and minority women. It is limiting the ability of them to succeed and compete in a free labor market.

8) Sex - sorry folks, he's right, you've either been born with a penis or a vagina.

Search up 'intersex'.

9) Coddling

Maybe the only good point in here

10) Spanking - Hell, people spank each other for sexual arousal

Well, yes. But do you really want to be one of those people?

mattsmith48
January 27th, 2017, 01:49 AM
First, police aren't murdering unarmed black men at disproportionate rates. The absolute last resort in police work is lethal force, police just don't walk around saying "I'm gonna find myself a young black male and shoot him today," that's ridiculous. Again, these are the people trying to STOP crime, not engage in it. If an officer shoots and kills somebody, it is either because their life was threatened directly or because the lives of bystanders were in jeopardy.

We have all seen those videos, I don't know what you call that, but to me it looks kinda like murder. Do police officers in the US walk around looking for an unarmed black man to kill? Of course not, in most of the cases where unarmed black men are kill its the police feeling their life is threatened because of a combination of how easy it is for anyone even criminals and terrorist to get a gun legally and ignorant people spreading stereotypes and bullshit like you just did.

brandon9
January 27th, 2017, 07:11 AM
I am just too tired and lazy to elaborate fully on this. The extent of ignorance on such common basic issues simply astounds me. Please read up on gender dysphoria also known as gender identity disorder. Since it is classified under ICD and by doctors I would think that it is science? Its under F64 for ICD-10. There are also cases of intersex babies with ambiguous external genitalia too. So if intersex is biological then are these people male or female or both?

So is this about intolerance or ignorance?

Per Psychology Today:

Gender dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder) is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex that results in significant distress or impairment. People with gender dysphoria desire to live as members of the opposite sex and often dress and use mannerisms associated with the other gender. For instance, a person identified as a boy may feel and act like a girl.

The description from the ICD-10 site says much the same. Sure enough, it is science, but this still doesn't change my last statement; people with gender dysphoria are still born male or female. The conflict is entirely psychological in nature. The operation to change one's birth sex goes against the most basic parts of science, of biology and anatomy, this is the point I was making to mattsmith48 earlier.

As for intersex children, that is the result of one or several mistakes during development, and is typically rectified soon after birth. The point here is, these people are unfortunately the victim of a developmental defect, which is a separate issue from the one revolving around properly developed men or women having surgery to change their sex.

So, to answer your barbed question, it is neither intolerance nor ignorance. I'm sick of the intolerant/ignorant label surrounding homosexuals/transgenders; if you aren't 100% for them, you're labeled as such.

I will have to come back later today and respond to the other two above posts, I don't have the time right now.

bentheplayer
January 27th, 2017, 10:34 AM
Per Psychology Today:

Gender dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder) is defined by strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one's own assigned sex that results in significant distress or impairment. People with gender dysphoria desire to live as members of the opposite sex and often dress and use mannerisms associated with the other gender. For instance, a person identified as a boy may feel and act like a girl.

The description from the ICD-10 site says much the same. Sure enough, it is science, but this still doesn't change my last statement; people with gender dysphoria are still born male or female. The conflict is entirely psychological in nature. The operation to change one's birth sex goes against the most basic parts of science, of biology and anatomy, this is the point I was making to mattsmith48 earlier.

As for intersex children, that is the result of one or several mistakes during development, and is typically rectified soon after birth. The point here is, these people are unfortunately the victim of a developmental defect, which is a separate issue from the one revolving around properly developed men or women having surgery to change their sex.

So, to answer your barbed question, it is neither intolerance nor ignorance. I'm sick of the intolerant/ignorant label surrounding homosexuals/transgenders; if you aren't 100% for them, you're labeled as such.

I will have to come back later today and respond to the other two above posts, I don't have the time right now.

Well copying and pasting what is said hardly shows that you even understand how GID comes about. Giving the subject a cursory glance is hardly sufficient. Until you have read up on the various papers and journals regarding this topic, then we can have a meaningful discussion. Also, please don't just simply limit yourself to studies done on humans. Read up on those done on fishes, ferrets and rats too. Do take note of the specific developmental sequence in terms of structure (brain and genitalia), hormones, psychology and behavior. Since you mentioned gender reassignment, do find out about the legal and medical background of it before asking why so many people are doing it after 18.

Actually, I am perfectly fine if you say that you don't condone homosexuality/transgendrism due to religion. If it is your belief that a higher being has instructed you that such practices are wrong then I can't call you ignorant or intolerant since I can't prove conclusively whether such a being truly exists. However, it is overly simplistic to try justify this with science when the arguments don't hold. Not too long ago, the church claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Don't make the same mistake again. Also, if religion is the reason, I would like to know why most Christians are so zealous against LGBTS but quiet silent on adultery and divorce especially when the bible suggests that they are all equal sins. I know many churches don't make such distinctions but mine does. Even the idea on sex reassignment surgery and homosexuality seems to be somewhat contentious among theologians. When you study the bible in the original language it was written you will better understand what I mean. The historical context and translations are actually not very accurate as there are many concepts in Hebrew that are not directly transferable to English due to the linguistic limitations of the English language.

While this not a totally sound concept, consider this notion. Since one common argument is that God makes a person's gender which is arguably cosmetic and if sex change surgery is a sin, isn't cosmetic surgery a sin too?

Rather than lambasting the label, first ensure that you aren't ignorant on the topic so that people can't accuse you of being so. As for being intolerant, the way you act and communicate your views sound intolerant. There is a difference between loving thy neighbor and not agreeing with his actions. All that many Christians have done is to say these group of people will burn in hell and alienate them. Acting in such a manner is no different from acting like a pharisee. Besides what good will come of it apart from creating resentment in both parties? The usual perceived moral superiority isn't helping either.

brandon9
January 27th, 2017, 11:43 AM
How is calling for a better, more fair criminal justice system harmful? How is advocating for transparency and oversight a bad thing?

BLM goes about calling for change in the entirely wrong way. It is an inherently disruptive, violent, law-breaking movement in 90% of the cases. I agree there are a multitude of problems with the criminal justice system; however, the problem is not in racial profiling or lack of transparency. The problems are in the prisons, in certain laws/court rulings, in lack of proper training and accreditation for officers, things of that nature.

I agree with this. However, in the high profile (and non-high profile) cases we see, the officer is acquitted without even standing trial in a court of law. If that keeps happening, then you probably begin to wonder why.
Maybe you'd be surprised by this but the official BLM organisation is a firm supporter of Community Policing as well. Maybe you guys have more in common than you think.

But look at what these high profile cases typically include; illegal activity, resisting arrest/refusing to comply with commands, possession of a weapon or attempts to harm the officer or other civilians, etc. etc. At that point, when those circumstances are present, the actions of the police are justifiable.

And yet BLM is a primary source of anti-police sentiment in this country. It has an adverse affect on society, to the extent that police officers are afraid to actually enforce the law and take action against individuals because they're afraid they'll be targeted for it. It promotes violence and unrest, and lack of cooperation with the police; this is the exact opposite of what the CPM suggests. CPM is about the community and police working together to solve problems and reduce crime, not about one group promoting anti-police sentiment and making it harder for the officers to do their jobs.

It was classified as a hate crime within a day. Not even a point to be had here.

And yet people still argue it wasn't a hate crime because it was black vs white, but because it was a special needs kid. Remove that factor, and people say it isn't a hate crime. I've been told this, to my face, by more than one person.

And why wouldn't it be? I'm sorry but this is such and over-represented issue. Most of the super PC universities are private, meaning they can do what they want. Public ones have to be more levelheaded in general. And when have students as a whole been really excited by conservative values? Think about it; which party is actually trying to make an effort to really pander to young people? (hint: it is the party that Bernie almost became the nominee for)

This is the entire problem with this generation, the under-30s, this obsession with extreme societal liberalism. Public or private university, it doesn't matter; it is all political. The liberalized youth of this age are filling the universities, which have liberalized professors and administrators, which fosters the spread of liberal values and agendas. This is even true at the public high school level - at least 80% of your teachers in a given school system will be heavily liberal. Political views have become so entrenched in the education system of America and nobody wants to acknowledge that it even happens, let alone that it is a major problem. Conservatism is dying a slow death among the millennial generation, and it is in part due to the socialization children receive from liberal institutions from the moment they enter them at a young age.

International law forbids that right now. This is really extreme stuff here. Refugees also put more into the country's economy than they take within a few years. In the short-run, yes, they take up resources. But once they acclimate, they become productive, safe people. Unlike Europe, we actually have a decent vetting system that filters out people connected to terrorists and criminals.

The entire concept of "refuge" is that one day you will leave. These people are not meant to come here and live the rest of their lives here, they need to return to their own country. There is a huge difference in coming to the U.S. seeking citizenship and coming here seeking refugee status. And in what way is our vetting system decent? It needs to be improved exponentially before it could even be considered the bare minimum of acceptably functional.

As a response to your most recent post, I'll use your example against you. Imagine it's 1936 and the Nazis take power in Germany, and freedom-loving Germans flee to the US to escape repression. Do you take them in? If yes, what's the difference? The refugees could be Nazis after all. If no, why not? They are fleeing to escape, not cause issues.

Counter point - it's 1944 and conservative, freedom-loving Germans initiated the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler and gain control of the government via initiating Operation Valkyrie. It damn near succeeded. Same people you're talking about, different approach to solving their problem; these ones fought instead of fled.

In that instance, with a prevailing political party such as the Nazis, there is not a chance in hell I would accept any German immigrants were I in the position to make that decision. First, for security reasons (applicable today to Islamic terrorists in the Middle East), second for economic issues (in the 30s, coming out of the Depression, today - coming out of a recession), third for societal stability (massive influx of foreigners = societal shake-up). I could go on. But, as I said before, the entire overlying issue here is that it is NOT the job of the United States to fix the problems of other nations, nor house everybody from them who doesn't want to live there.

Like I was saying, extreme. Birthright citizenship makes sense because American culture is extremely pervasive. People who grow up here become Americans, because if you don't you live in a slum forever.

Birthright citizenship is a mistake. This is why:

Imagine a group of illegal immigrants has been discovered, a family unit, two parents and a kid. The parents came here illegally. The child was born here. The parents are not U.S. citizens and are being deported back to their own country, because they don't belong here - they didn't come here legally, a process which is not all that difficult. But, the kid is a citizen because he was born here, so what do we do with him, kick him out to keep the family together, kick just the parents out and send him to a foster home, or excuse the fact that the parents aren't citizens and act like that's okay? It boils down to this - to be a citizen of the United States, you must be born to citizens of the United States, or go about the proper legal method for obtaining citizenship if you're coming here from somewhere else. Just because you're born in America doesn't make you an American.

For a conservative, you don't seem too keen on merit. If a woman is stronger than a male candidate, she should get the job. Besides, how important are manual labor jobs anyways to the whole economy and the distribution of jobs as a whole? I'd guess they are far from the most important (but not unimportant). There is a difference in opportunity between men and women, and especially between men and minority women. It is limiting the ability of them to succeed and compete in a free labor market.

If a woman has a business degree and I don't and we both apply for the same management position, and she gets it, I understand that. It is applicable merit. But, if neither of us have a degree and apply for a position working grocery at Kroger, I'm more suited to the task of pulling around 2000lb+ pallets and lifting products ranging up to 70lbs. That's the point here.

Without manual labor jobs, our country would totally fall apart. Take just highway maintenance and construction - essential manual labor professions. If you don't have a road to get to your bank office building, or if you don't even have a building, it's kind of hard to run a bank, now isn't it?

Search up 'intersex'.

Already discussed this in my last post.

Maybe the only good point in here

Beg to differ, but glad you seem to agree.

Well, yes. But do you really want to be one of those people?

No. But the point is, how is that not domestic abuse but spanking is considered child abuse? It makes no logical sense - it is the same exact action. A hand is hitting an ass.

We have all seen those videos, I don't know what you call that, but to me it looks kinda like murder. Do police officers in the US walk around looking for an unarmed black man to kill? Of course not, in most of the cases where unarmed black men are kill its the police feeling their life is threatened because of a combination of how easy it is for anyone even criminals and terrorist to get a gun legally and ignorant people spreading stereotypes and bullshit like you just did.

Your ignorance yet again betrays you. It is not murder. It never has been murder. There's a concept written into law called "justifiable homicide," I suggest you read about it. Criminals cannot obtain guns here from legal vendors, nor can suspected terrorists. Those are ILLEGALLY obtained, perhaps research the difference in legality and illegality as well?

But, go ahead and call me the ignorant one. At least I actually know what I'm talking about, can have an intellectual conversation, know what my own party and beliefs stand for without contradicting my ideology, and at least I'm not the prime example of how misinformation floods through this generation. Don't be offended, I'm just spreading my stereotypical bullshit.

Dalcourt
January 27th, 2017, 12:08 PM
No. But the point is, how is that not domestic abuse but spanking is considered child abuse? It makes no logical sense - it is the same exact action. A hand is hitting an ass.



Most of the things you said here are incredibly flawed but I don't have time to discuss it at the moment.So I just address the silliest and most ridiculous one.
What the holy fuck have sexual practices and hitting kids to do with one another?
People spanking their kids...well as swat on the butt won't kill anyone. But with where to draw the line the real arguments start. What do you learn from a spanking? That people have to use physical force to get their point across? That if you don't get people to learn and understand with words you should use violence? Black people hit their kids more than white people do as statistics show....so maybe they are more violent in their later life due to that? Food for thought...

Spanking as a way of getting sexual pleasure is done in mutual agreement . In sexual relationships involving spanking or S&M you set clear rules, use safe words to signal the other when to stop etc...so what on earth do you want to prove with this argument? Did you and your Daddy agree on safe words that signaled him when you had enough of your spanking or did he ask you whether you are in the mood for a spanking today or what?!?!?

mattsmith48
January 27th, 2017, 03:33 PM
Conservatism is dying a slow death among the millennial generation,

Good.


Imagine a group of illegal immigrants has been discovered, a family unit, two parents and a kid. The parents came here illegally. The child was born here. The parents are not U.S. citizens and are being deported back to their own country, because they don't belong here - they didn't come here legally, a process which is not all that difficult. But, the kid is a citizen because he was born here, so what do we do with him, kick him out to keep the family together, kick just the parents out and send him to a foster home, or excuse the fact that the parents aren't citizens and act like that's okay? It boils down to this - to be a citizen of the United States, you must be born to citizens of the United States, or go about the proper legal method for obtaining citizenship if you're coming here from somewhere else. Just because you're born in America doesn't make you an American.

Crazy idea about you don't kicking out anyone.

Your ignorance yet again betrays you. It is not murder. It never has been murder. There's a concept written into law called "justifiable homicide," I suggest you read about it.

For a trained police officer the only time killing someone would be justify is if that someone as a deadly weapon and is going to use it

Criminals cannot obtain guns here from legal vendors, nor can suspected terrorists. Those are ILLEGALLY obtained, perhaps research the difference in legality and illegality as well?

Most mass shootings in the US are done with legally bought guns.

Porpoise101
January 27th, 2017, 07:33 PM
BLM goes about calling for change in the entirely wrong way. It is an inherently disruptive, violent, law-breaking movement in 90% of the cases. I agree there are a multitude of problems with the criminal justice system; however, the problem is not in racial profiling or lack of transparency. The problems are in the prisons, in certain laws/court rulings, in lack of proper training and accreditation for officers, things of that nature.

Look, if you looked at what their interest group, Campaign Zero, has proposed, I bet you will agree with most of what they propose. Take a look (https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview) yourself. It's way more accurate to get the info from the group themselves rather than a sign-waver or media man.

But look at what these high profile cases typically include; illegal activity, resisting arrest/refusing to comply with commands, possession of a weapon or attempts to harm the officer or other civilians, etc. etc. At that point, when those circumstances are present, the actions of the police are justifiable.

And yet, some just involve a guy getting mad at being stopped. That doesn't mean you should get shot. At least that's what happened in the case of Garner. I agree with what you have said, but force is resorted to way too fast when there is not even a weapon involved initially.

And yet BLM is a primary source of anti-police sentiment in this country.

I don't see anti police sentiment as a guiding principle (http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/). There may be a bunch of cringy commie stuff there, but it's not anti-police. Maybe it's got more people to reconsider their relationship to police, but is that really a bad thing? At least it makes people honest with themselves so problems can be solved.

And yet people still argue it wasn't a hate crime because it was black vs white, but because it was a special needs kid. Remove that factor, and people say it isn't a hate crime. I've been told this, to my face, by more than one person.

That's because they are dumb and probably don't know the facts. Even if it wasn't about race, they attacked and singled out a disabled person. It's a hate crime for two reasons at least.

the socialization children receive from liberal institutions

No one complains about the military being too conservative (ok some people do, but not nearly as many). Arguably, conservative religious institutions have a huge impact on children too. We grow up in a society with mixed ideologies, and I am fine with that. Sure, the ideal is to be neutral, but that is pretty hard to achieve. It is definately better than a society with one dominant ideology though. Be thankful for that.

The entire concept of "refuge" is that one day you will leave. These people are not meant to come here and live the rest of their lives here, they need to return to their own country. There is a huge difference in coming to the U.S. seeking citizenship and coming here seeking refugee status.

Most refugees do return when the conflict subsides. Many Nepali refugees returned home when their little conflict subsided. The issue is that we are actively making the situation worse in the Middle East, which is partially why there is constant conflict. This makes it unsafe for them to be returned. Many Americans came to be citizens and to flee persecution by the way (how many early Americans fled religious persecution?).

And in what way is our vetting system decent? It needs to be improved exponentially before it could even be considered the bare minimum of acceptably functional.

Take a look at the vetting process (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-takes-two-years-for-syrian-refugees-to-apply-to-enter-the-united-states.html?_r=0). With all of the checks, time, and interviews, it seems decent to me.

Counter point - it's 1944 and conservative, freedom-loving Germans initiated the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler and gain control of the government via initiating Operation Valkyrie. It damn near succeeded. Same people you're talking about, different approach to solving their problem; these ones fought instead of fled.

Not sure where you got the impression that anyone in the German military had any 'freedom-loving' sympathies. Historically, the leaders came from the anti-democratic and Nationalist Juncker class. The people who orchestrated that plot didn't want to free Germany. Instead, they had aims of re-throning the Kaiser or taking power themselves. Maybe more relevant to our current situation, it's not really practical to insist that families fight and die.

But, as I said before, the entire overlying issue here is that it is NOT the job of the United States to fix the problems of other nations, nor house everybody from them who doesn't want to live there.

You are right, the burden should be shared among the developed world. However, last I checked, the US has not taken that many refugees from Syria (unlike Northern Europe). And they haven't used their power to influence other countries to take in more (like Saudi Arabia for example). It's in our interests to mitigate the negative effects of failed states. Otherwise, they start producing issues like human rights violations, militancy, and extremism. We have not played our cards right on this issue, and backing out of the world stage is going to make it worse.

Birthright citizenship is a mistake. This is why:

Imagine a group of illegal immigrants has been discovered, a family unit, two parents and a kid. The parents came here illegally. The child was born here. The parents are not U.S. citizens and are being deported back to their own country, because they don't belong here - they didn't come here legally, a process which is not all that difficult. But, the kid is a citizen because he was born here, so what do we do with him, kick him out to keep the family together, kick just the parents out and send him to a foster home, or excuse the fact that the parents aren't citizens and act like that's okay?

I think this story says more about the broken visa system (where undocumented types usually come from). For example, Canada's system of immigration is clean, organized and coherent. They actually select based on skill and language proficiency which makes sense. In the mean time, we should not abolish the time honored system of birthright citizenship. Instead, a temporary visa program could deal with the undocumented unskilled worker issue for the time being.

If a woman has a business degree and I don't and we both apply for the same management position, and she gets it, I understand that. It is applicable merit. But, if neither of us have a degree and apply for a position working grocery at Kroger, I'm more suited to the task of pulling around 2000lb+ pallets and lifting products ranging up to 70lbs. That's the point here.

That's fair

No. But the point is, how is that not domestic abuse but spanking is considered child abuse? It makes no logical sense - it is the same exact action. A hand is hitting an ass.

One was consented to, the other wasn't.

lliam
January 27th, 2017, 09:24 PM
What are the several points and why do you agree with them?


to me it was such this point:


There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is only racism.

brandon9
January 27th, 2017, 10:28 PM
Most of the things you said here are incredibly flawed but I don't have time to discuss it at the moment.

Do enlighten me in what I say that is so flawed, by all means.

So I just address the silliest and most ridiculous one.
What the holy fuck have sexual practices and hitting kids to do with one another?
People spanking their kids...well as swat on the butt won't kill anyone. But with where to draw the line the real arguments start. What do you learn from a spanking? That people have to use physical force to get their point across? That if you don't get people to learn and understand with words you should use violence? Black people hit their kids more than white people do as statistics show....so maybe they are more violent in their later life due to that? Food for thought...

Spanking as a way of getting sexual pleasure is done in mutual agreement . In sexual relationships involving spanking or S&M you set clear rules, use safe words to signal the other when to stop etc...so what on earth do you want to prove with this argument? Did you and your Daddy agree on safe words that signaled him when you had enough of your spanking or did he ask you whether you are in the mood for a spanking today or what?!?!?

When I was spanked as a child it was for not listening. If I threw a fit in the grocery store and didn't stop when I was told to, I'd get spanked either when we got to the car or when we got home, just one example. You ask what it teaches? It teaches you to listen when you're told to stop. It teaches you respect toward your parental authority. The connection I make between sexual spanking and disciplinary spanking is that neither act is violent for the sake of being violent, neither is meant to be abusive. It's a double standard - you spank a kid and it's called child abuse, if that kid grows up and spanks his girlfriend during sex it's called foreplay.


Good.

Betrays your sickening lack of political intelligence, spoken as only a truly ignorant liberal could.



Crazy idea about you don't kicking out anyone.

This isn't even a proper sentence... It makes literally no logical sense.


For a trained police officer the only time killing someone would be justify is if that someone as a deadly weapon and is going to use it

So if the gangbanger has a Glock already it's okay to shoot him, but if he has no gun and rushes the police officer in an attempt to take the officer's weapon after being told to put his hands up and kneel on the ground repeatedly, it's not within the officer's bounds to shoot him? That's a practical example of your illogical argument. (Side note: you can kill with your hands bud, don't need a weapon if you're determined).

Most mass shootings in the US are done with legally bought guns.

Obtained because of the lack of a good vetting system. But I know your solution is outlaw all guns, right?

Look, if you looked at what their interest group, Campaign Zero, has proposed, I bet you will agree with most of what they propose. Take a look (https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview) yourself. It's way more accurate to get the info from the group themselves rather than a sign-waver or media man.

Thank you for being the most logical, factual, informed person to debate me here.

In looking at their message, yes, there are a few ideas that are good. Body cams, for example, are a good idea for all officers, just as is expanded training. However, many of these points are flawed, coming from someone who is again in school studying criminal justice: the police, while working in cooperation with the community, should not be solely answerable to the community as the community doesn't carry out the actions of upholding the law, removing criminals from the streets, persecuting criminals, etc. The police NEED to retain a level of separation from the community, especially at the federal level. The points about ending "Broken Windows Offenses" are absurd, those are all infractions of the law and most can pose risk to the community. Many points regarding use of force are questionable - how are you supposed to stop a criminal running away, chase after him and politely ask him to stop running and let you put handcuffs on him? The car chase provisions are detrimental to police function, if you're in a chase to begin with you're dealing with more than just a normal traffic stop. Limiting fines and fees for low-income people is just fucking stupid - it's okay for someone above the poverty line to be penalized, but the poor guy gets off light? That's unconstitutional in of itself. Militarization of police units such as SWAT or SAR teams are not a bad thing. Many of the points this group makes are just not good ones from a enforcement viewpoint.


And yet, some just involve a guy getting mad at being stopped. That doesn't mean you should get shot. At least that's what happened in the case of Garner. I agree with what you have said, but force is resorted to way too fast when there is not even a weapon involved initially.

Ah, but when the anger expresses violence, even in the lowest form, the officer is then threatened. Doesn't always warrant shooting, but use of force? Absolutely.

Take the Tamir Rice shooting for example. The kid was in a public park with an airsoft pistol that had the proper orange markings removed, making it appear as a real handgun. When the police showed up, Rice reached for the gun at his waist, and the officer shot him. Tragic as it may be that the kid died, he refused commands to drop what the police saw as a loaded weapon that posed a danger, and actually reached for it. That's a totally justifiable shooting, even though it was a younger teen. Tragic, yes, but in the circumstance, justifiable.

I don't see anti police sentiment as a guiding principle (http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/). There may be a bunch of cringy commie stuff there, but it's not anti-police. Maybe it's got more people to reconsider their relationship to police, but is that really a bad thing? At least it makes people honest with themselves so problems can be solved.

Of course they don't list anti-police sentiment as a guiding principle, but they promote it nonetheless.


That's because they are dumb and probably don't know the facts. Even if it wasn't about race, they attacked and singled out a disabled person. It's a hate crime for two reasons at least.

And these are the hopeless members of this generation who are inheriting the world. Cause for major concern.


No one complains about the military being too conservative (ok some people do, but not nearly as many). Arguably, conservative religious institutions have a huge impact on children too. We grow up in a society with mixed ideologies, and I am fine with that. Sure, the ideal is to be neutral, but that is pretty hard to achieve. It is definately better than a society with one dominant ideology though. Be thankful for that.

Perhaps thirty years ago, but if you look at this generation, a large percentage are either nonreligious entirely, or religious liberals. The conservative religious youth originate mostly in the South.

Mixed ideologies can be good when it's possible to cooperate and compromise, but when the ideologies directly contradict the entirety of each other (I.e. liberal vs conservative), they become a detriment to societal function.


Most refugees do return when the conflict subsides. Many Nepali refugees returned home when their little conflict subsided. The issue is that we are actively making the situation worse in the Middle East, which is partially why there is constant conflict. This makes it unsafe for them to be returned. Many Americans came to be citizens and to flee persecution by the way (how many early Americans fled religious persecution?).

I've maintained the US should pull entirely out of the Middle East. That part of the world has been in conflict with itself for tens of thousands of years, the US isn't going to and isn't meant to stop it. Focus on domestic problems, not foreign ones. Accepting refugees from an area historically prone to warfare isn't solving domestic problems. That's the culture over there, whether people admit it or not. Centuries upon centuries of conflict shape that region.

Take a look at the vetting process (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/20/us/why-it-takes-two-years-for-syrian-refugees-to-apply-to-enter-the-united-states.html?_r=0). With all of the checks, time, and interviews, it seems decent to me.

Yet we still miss many people with terrorist connections.

Not sure where you got the impression that anyone in the German military had any 'freedom-loving' sympathies. Historically, the leaders came from the anti-democratic and Nationalist Juncker class. The people who orchestrated that plot didn't want to free Germany. Instead, they had aims of re-throning the Kaiser or taking power themselves. Maybe more relevant to our current situation, it's not really practical to insist that families fight and die.

For them, it was freedom from the Nazi party. Getting rid of Nazis = freedom to many back then.

Be it physical fighting or more passive, intellectual fighting, it is still better to fight for what you stand for than flee and let the worst happen. An ostrich isn't hidden if it buries it's head in the sand, no matter how much it thinks it is. A predator comes eventually, and the ostrich must fight or flee.

You are right, the burden should be shared among the developed world. However, last I checked, the US has not taken that many refugees from Syria (unlike Northern Europe). And they haven't used their power to influence other countries to take in more (like Saudi Arabia for example). It's in our interests to mitigate the negative effects of failed states. Otherwise, they start producing issues like human rights violations, militancy, and extremism. We have not played our cards right on this issue, and backing out of the world stage is going to make it worse.

We hadn't taken them in yet, but we were on track to hit their equivalent eventually, and look how well accepting them has worked for Europe. Not that good.

My contention is again, America has a host of domestic issues we need to fix well before we worry at all about human rights violations or militancy issues in other countries. We need a period of isolationism to reset our country, to go back to the days where almost every product here said "Made In USA" and restore cohesion throughout the nation.

I think this story says more about the broken visa system (where undocumented types usually come from). For example, Canada's system of immigration is clean, organized and coherent. They actually select based on skill and language proficiency which makes sense. In the mean time, we should not abolish the time honored system of birthright citizenship. Instead, a temporary visa program could deal with the undocumented unskilled worker issue for the time being.

It's still highly applicable to the issue of deporting the illegals. The problem with the temporary visa program is just that - it is temporary, which means it only forestalls the inevitable issue that must be dealt with.


That's fair

I know it is. So why, then, will a feminist even attempt to argue that the woman should make MORE than I would, when I'm better suited to the job?


One was consented to, the other wasn't.

But neither is inherently abusive.

Dalcourt
January 27th, 2017, 11:56 PM
brandon9 as I said I'm not interested really in discussing the same old things with people who obviously don want to understand.
But as you invited.

1. BLM and Police Racism:of coures as a white (upper) middle class male you won't suffer from racism, how should you? So for you movements that try to protect minorities are utter bullshit. I don't say that I fully agree with them and I don't say that rioting in the streets is right. But racism especially among police forces is real. I have heard that from (retired) police officers themselves.
I don't really believe that they run around and try to find a black guy but what I believe is that due to their inherent racism most of them are afraid of black people. I believe that those police officers are too weak and unfit for their job and that every police officer who shoots an unarmed out of fright and all should get an office job as he seems not fit for the outside or removed from his job completely. If you act out of fright, can't stay calm etc.you are simply unfit to be an officer in certain areas and should be removed for your own and others safety. In every other job something similar would happen just not in the army or police forces...there all mentally unstable can run around with a gun and even get paid for it. Sure the hardcore cases are removed but there fly way too many such candidates under the radar...
I live in a larger city where the majority of people are black and sure most criminals here are black, too but why are the percentages like that?
Wouldn't it be better to tackle causes before it is to late and the kid is a criminal already and gets shot and the another riot follows? To say blacks are criminals but movements to protect the rights of black people so that you save maybe a few of them kids before they become hardcore criminals is bad and would only create more racism and are therefore bad....that's where the big problem of our society lies.
And of course all lives matter but blacks do, too. Pro black doesn't automatically mean anti white this is just a white man's point of view. Still sometimes it's hard to explain why a black kid is shot without asking for playing with a toy gun while a white guy can shoot several innocents in a movie theatre or church and walk out unharmed.
The ordinary black isn't out there wanting to take something from the white, they just want equality, justice and peace and that we have to discuss this till today shows that all the problems that should be overcome by now still exist.

2. The fuck Trump incident: of course this was a horrible thing. It was classified as a hate crime and if someone says it wasn't they are just misinformed.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2033707
For example went unpunished so there are no angels on both sides?
And people not rioting because of it? Well maybe whites are too lazy to stand up for their brothers and sisters?Or maybe they share the President's view it's okay to laugh about disabled and didn't think it so important as a whole?

3.I won't talk about the sex/gender issue anymore as you are not informed enough about it to really discuss it anyway as posts of other members showed.

4.I don't feel like talking about the refugees issue anymore either. We Americans can be loudmouths about this since we will never experience a war like e.g. in Syria here but we should never forget that a lot of our ancestors were refugees of some sort, too.

5. Feminism Since I'm male I will never fully understand every last it of it. I will never experience certain things woman do and will never have to decide whether to abort or not when a baby grows in my own body. So if you wanna discuss Feminism with an expert do it with a female like Mars
I can just tell you the same as with the racism issue nobody is out there wanting to take from you they just want the same...so what's not fair and just about that?
I also don't think that the notion uou have about women will help you to find a girlfriend or later wife.

6. I addressed the spanking issue already, you answered but failed to really answer so that's fine with me. I just want to add that when I was told to shut up or do this or that I was explained why and understood that and didn't need any additional hits. And I would have never even thought about throwing a tantrum when grocery shopping with my Granny.
Just pampered kids do that.

Which leads to my last point. The coddling issue...Sorry to burst your bubble but you come across as the spoilt Millennial you obviously hate in almost every of your posts. Do you think a kid in the good old conservative times could have acted like you do? I don't think so for several reasons but since I have a live and let live attitude and I am not a mean person I will refrain from discussing this any further here.

Mars
January 28th, 2017, 01:28 AM
5. Feminism Since I'm male I will never fully understand every last it of it. I will never experience certain things woman do and will never have to decide whether to abort or not when a baby grows in my own body. So if you wanna discuss Feminism with an expert do it with a female like Mars
I can just tell you the same as with the racism issue nobody is out there wanting to take from you they just want the same...so what's not fair and just about that?
I also don't think that the notion uou have about women will help you to find a girlfriend or later wife.
Ah man why you gotta bring me into it like this :lol: :P Is as staying out of it because of his ignorance... ah...

N feminism expert? Thanks :lol: :D

---

I'm not going to tackle everything you've said, simply because I don't have the patience and I don't really care, but


Feminists argue some very illogical points, I'm sorry. As I said before, in professions dependent on manual labor, a woman can't perform as efficiently as a man, it is scientifically (since you like science) proven that men are stronger than women. Therefore, the man should be entitled to higher salary. Same goes for a number of professions. Look at what women can do now that they couldn't years ago - vote, live alone, own property, win just about any custody battle on the planet, enter the military or law enforcement, hold executive positions, run for office... Need I go on? Women are every bit afforded equal opportunities to men, sometimes far superior opportunities depending on specific circumstances.
R u fuckin srs w this m7?

Women aren't offered equal opportunities as men. More cases then not, women will not be hired because they are women, or because there is a man who wants the same position. Fact.

Also, you think it's a privilege that women are able to vote and enter the military? FUCK.

And also, you think women should be paid less for doing the same job? FUCKX2. That makes literally no sense. So lets say a woman is more qualified and better than a man at doing a job, should the men be paid less because someone is better than them? Even though they're doing all the same work? Wtf of course not.

And also (x2), you know what sexism is?... oh... right... that word...

Not sure where you draw socialism here, but socialism is not a productive system and isn't ever going to be.
Lol m8 you think capitalism is any better? You realize that America incorporates a multitude of socialist ideologies into society?

bentheplayer
January 28th, 2017, 02:25 AM
Mars that is why I have given up. It is impossible to reason with one who has incomplete knowledge and refuses to look at all the evidence. Sure it is hard work to go through all the various pov and evidence objectively but if they don't and simply keeps harping on their own misinformed selectively chosen limited evidence base it is just wasting our time. Neither party will learn nor gain any new insights and I value my time. That's why I am not going to comment further on the trans issue till the other party has trawled through the various current research. In fact the nature and nurture argument been there for ages but ...

brandon9 Before bemoaning the death of conservatism perhaps you should look at what it entails and why people don't believe in it. Surely people are discerning enough to decide what is good for them. For the record even in UK, the conservative party leader once said that if Trump came to their country(UK), he would unite us(UK ppl) all against him. There isn't any value to being extremely partisan till you simply ignore issues and brush away issues that the perceived other side raise.

mattsmith48
January 28th, 2017, 10:50 AM
This isn't even a proper sentence... It makes literally no logical sense.

Let the undocumented parents stay in america with their american kids, is it really so hard.

So if the gangbanger has a Glock already it's okay to shoot him, but if he has no gun and rushes the police officer in an attempt to take the officer's weapon after being told to put his hands up and kneel on the ground repeatedly, it's not within the officer's bounds to shoot him? That's a practical example of your illogical argument. (Side note: you can kill with your hands bud, don't need a weapon if you're determined).

Police officers have training for a situation like this with out using deadly force

Obtained because of the lack of a good vetting system. But I know your solution is outlaw all guns, right?

Yeah something that is made solely to kill should be available legally, its better than your solution of I don't give a shit.

bentheplayer
January 28th, 2017, 11:49 AM
brandon9 mattsmith48 On the topic of citizenship, historically, America was build and formed by immigrants. In fact that is the basis of Jus Soli that is enshrined in the US constitution that supposed reflects American societal ideals and morality. In most countries and even the US, the history of jus soli is longer than that of jus sanguinis by at least a few centuries.

The reason many people are in favor of these undocumented people is cos of their economic contributions. Without them, many industries will suffer from a labor shortage, particularly the agriculture and food sector which many Americans don't want to do cos these are "dirty jobs". The least you could do is to acknowledge the contributions of these people. Talk about biting the very hand that feeds you. Just go out there to those farms and talk to the owners. This is especially so in the dairy farms.

Withdrawing jus soli can have many various implications even for people who I believe in your opinion deserve citizenship such as abandoned babies with American babies. This means that people who would have been automatically accorded citizenship will now risk being stateless. Just imagine yourself being stateless. Besides what gives you a greater right to citizenship than others apart from being born in America? As it is I think only the very desperate will want a US citizenship when it has the worse deal ever imo.

Anyways people and citizenship can be extremely fluid these days. As long as you have money, nothing is impossible.

Porpoise101
January 29th, 2017, 10:14 AM
In looking at their message, yes, there are a few ideas that are good. Body cams, for example, are a good idea for all officers, just as is expanded training.

Well of course you don't perfectly agree. Neither do I. From my perspective however, it is better to work together first to get what both sides want. Then you can squabble after the mutually-agreed upon change has been enacted. Otherwise nothing will happen at all, and that is a greater problem affecting our country today.

Ah, but when the anger expresses violence, even in the lowest form, the officer is then threatened. Doesn't always warrant shooting, but use of force? Absolutely.

So you think someone should get shot for being mad at getting arrested? What? Instead of acting out immediately, the officer should probably try to de-escalate the situation (if possible to do safely).

And these are the hopeless members of this generation who are inheriting the world. Cause for major concern.

And so are you. And so am I. It's not hopeless unless you don't do anything about it.

Perhaps thirty years ago, but if you look at this generation, a large percentage are either nonreligious entirely, or religious liberals. The conservative religious youth originate mostly in the South.

Even still, there is a ton of conservative influence in society. Sure, it's lesser than it was. Left-wing views may become more pervasive. But there is always a 'swingback', meaning that the right will come back in the US, maybe under a different form.

Mixed ideologies can be good when it's possible to cooperate and compromise, but when the ideologies directly contradict the entirety of each other (I.e. liberal vs conservative), they become a detriment to societal function.

No, having more opinions is better because the alternative will lead to oppression and loss of freedom. Dissent must always exist to limit the power of government. This applies to all ideologies.

That part of the world has been in conflict with itself for tens of thousands of years

So has Europe. But US-lead efforts brought a long, stable, and prosperous peace to the continent. The same can be done in the Middle East, although we have hurt the idea of peace.

Yet we still miss many people with terrorist connections.

And none of them are refugees. Not a single Syrian refugee in the US has caused an act of terror. They have all been homegrown in the last 10 years. In 9/11, not a single perpetrator was Syrian.

Be it physical fighting or more passive, intellectual fighting, it is still better to fight for what you stand for than flee and let the worst happen. An ostrich isn't hidden if it buries it's head in the sand, no matter how much it thinks it is. A predator comes eventually, and the ostrich must fight or flee.

There is a saying called "live to fight for another day". Here is a successful example. After the Russian Revolution, Russian Orthodox Church members fled to the US. Then they waited and waited. The USSR eventually fell. Then the descendants of the exiled helped rebuild the Russian Church to its modern strength.

We hadn't taken them in yet, but we were on track to hit their equivalent eventually, and look how well accepting them has worked for Europe. Not that good.

Unlike Europe, we have an actual vetting system. Considering the chaotic system they have had there, the Europeans turned out suprisingly well. With our good system, the damage is going to be almost nonexistant. There is also less than 100,000 Syrian refugees in the country. I don't see how that compares to the millions that EU nations have taken in.

We need a period of isolationism to reset our country, to go back to the days where almost every product here said "Made In USA" and restore cohesion throughout the nation.

We live in a connected world. Instead of shutting ourselves off from it, it makes more sense to take advantages of the opportunities to strengthen ourselves. Putting in all the work to be isolationist again is really a waste of time.

It's still highly applicable to the issue of deporting the illegals. The problem with the temporary visa program is just that - it is temporary, which means it only forestalls the inevitable issue that must be dealt with.

It's not as if Mexicans are continually flowing into our country. Last year there was a net negative of Mexicans coming into the US. Meaning the problem will solve itself if Mexico becomes a stable, livable place (something Trump is going to destroy).

I know it is. So why, then, will a feminist even attempt to argue that the woman should make MORE than I would, when I'm better suited to the job?

I've never heard that from a feminist.

But neither is inherently abusive.

If it's not abusive, why do children feel bad when hit? The whole point is to create shame and pain. That's abusive.