Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
-
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostPerhaps he fully understands your interpretation of the implications of his words, but rejects that interpretation.
As for whether I'm right or wrong about whether MM's words justify the perpetrators and/or convict arbery independent of his intent, that Is a matter that can be debated. And I am willing to debate my reasons for what I believe if anyone can get past throwing out false accusations of lying or ad hominems (and I actually did give the reason for my belief that is what is happening). But such rarely happens, so I'm assuming this is where it ends.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHe's just glomming onto the whole "critical race theory/white privilege/micro-aggression" nonsense where you can accuse someone of being unintentionally racist, and they're not allowed to defend themselves because denials are considered proof.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostThe first, second, or third time the decision was made to pull the trigger?
It will be interesting to see which way this case goes once the full facts are established.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat would be strawman fantasy of your own making MM. But, again, I don't expect you to ever debate the actual argument. You rarely do.
Let's turn this back on you: Why don't you focus on my actual words instead of making incorrect assumptions about my motives. Deal?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe "actual argument" where you falsely accuse me of being a racist without my knowing it?
Let's turn this back on you: Why don't you focus on my actual words instead of making incorrect assumptions about my motives. Deal?Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-18-2020, 11:43 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIf I believe you are acting on an underlying culturally induced racism, it has nothing to do with motives of any kind. I am, in fact not making any judgement about your motives or intent, although In actual fact, I am framing my arguments based on the assumption you have no conscious intent to be racist or to encourage racism. But I do see, in your words, the evidence of that same underlying cultural racism. And So I've already done what you ask.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHe's just glomming onto the whole "critical race theory/white privilege/micro-aggression" nonsense where you can accuse someone of being unintentionally racist, and they're not allowed to defend themselves because denials are considered proof.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Person A: "You're being unintentionally racist."
Person B: "No I'm not."
Person A: "See? You don't even realize it. That just proves I'm right."
There is literally no way for Person B to win this argument. It's a textbook kafkatrap.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostDoes it matter? Because all three times were after Arbery attacked the man. So again, it comes down to when the decision was made to pull the trigger. If it was after, and assuming no laws were broken up to that point (and I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise), then this could very easily come down to a case of self-defense in favor of the men who confronted Arbery. Does this suggest they were morally in the right to confront Arbery in the manner that they did? Not necessarily, but they may not be legally culpable for his death.
It will be interesting to see which way this case goes once the full facts are established.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostNo, it will come down the act of chasing the man down with guns in hand.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIt is illegal for an armed posse to form and go after a suspect.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
I think what's happening a lot in this case is....
There are a number of "facts" that came out initially, that have subsequently been disputed or adjusted.
We don't really have a timeline of who said what when.
Everybody is compiling their own "set of facts" to support their narrative.
As we've seen in the past, MANY times, when the "facts" are presented under oath, and subject to cross examination, they go "poof".
It would really be interesting to see the facts set out as they currently exist, not as they were originally portrayed.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt does appear odd what they were doing.
As I just posted, it will be interesting to see the actual facts under cross examination, to get the actual picture of what happened.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 12:53 PM
|
0 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 01:07 PM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, Yesterday, 08:57 PM
|
2 responses
102 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:08 AM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
|
22 responses
169 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 06:27 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 10:38 AM
|
14 responses
70 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 03:43 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-13-2024, 09:49 AM
|
6 responses
69 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 10:26 AM
|
Comment