Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Charles]

I quoted the relevant part, which was your concession that I have repeatedly said that the shooting wasn't justified, and I really don't care that you then tried to "reinterpret" my clear and unambiguous statements as saying the exact opposite. Believe it or not, Chuck, I'm not obligated to respond to every bit of sophistry that you sprinkle around this forum.

The most relevant part was about your constant focus on anything to put blame on the victim. It is so obvious that this is what you do and care about.

We are not fooled by your statements that you are not trying to justify what happened. It is way too obvious that you are trying to change focus and trying to make it look less bad. Way too obvious.

[Cow Poke]

None of us are afraid of the truth. We all *know* that Arbery "shouldn't" have made multiple choices he made. No one is trying to take away your "freedom of speech" or "right to offend" or whatever.

Great, then you guys can quit objecting when we want to look at ALL the facts.

[Cow Poke]

It is what was done in the threads in question.

You guys constantly objecting to ALL the facts being laid out there ON A DISCUSSION board? Yes.

Really, Jim, why don't you start your own board where you can control ALL the content.

[Charles]

You guys constantly objecting to ALL the facts being laid out there ON A DISCUSSION board? Yes.

Really, Jim, why don't you start your own board where you can control ALL the content.

Where are ALL the facts being laid out?

[Cow Poke]

Where are ALL the facts being laid out?

Throughout the discussion on this board, Charles - as they come to light, and / or as somebody brings them up.

[DivineOb]

Great, then you guys can quit objecting when we want to look at ALL the facts.

You can do whatever you want, CP. But I (and we) don't have to give you respect for it.

In response to Elena Mukhina breaking her neck should we have spent time "looking at the fact" of her not-fully-healed leg? Or focus on the core issue which more clearly affects the largest group of people, many of whom would break their neck even if they were in perfect health beforehand? Wasn't it the right call to ban the Thomas Salto without even looking for contributing factors?

[Charles]

Throughout the discussion on this board, Charles - as they come to light, and / or as somebody brings them up.

I guess you have missed the point then. Let me quote Ox:

It is what was done in the threads in question. And you were part of that process CP, whether you can admit it or not, whether you intend to be or not. As I have pointed out, we don't have long series of posts on why what the shooters did was wrong or delving deeply into how crazy their aggressive pursuit was, but we do have long series of posts trying to make out Arbery's presence in the house meant he was up to no good or 'casing' the joint for some future crime and that because of that the shooter has cause to chase after him.

You were part of that.

We also have the thread on Floyd and covid. Now you have clearly from the very beginning said the policeman was completely out of line wrt Floyd. But you're in there with the guys trying to make it about Floyd too, muddying your stance on the brutality of the police action. And you are all over pointing out how bad the protesters are, not countering wrt what might be motivating them.

So - you are not the worst by any means. But time and time again you are there supporting the worst, and in general against the conversation that recognizes how systemic racism and white privilege have kept black people oppressed for decades.

That is what you have done CP. It is what it is.

If you could show where we have ALL the things he points out that we don't, you would have a really strong case. Now all you can do is to continue to pretend that some "facts" are ALL the facts.

[Cow Poke]

I guess you have missed the point then. Let me quote Ox:

You asked about facts, then you switch to "points". Please try again.

[Cow Poke]

You can do whatever you want, CP. But I (and we) don't have to give you respect for it.

I really don't expect respect from those trying to limit the discussion to their own agenda. I fully expect to be attacked for that.

[JimL]

I really don't expect respect from those trying to limit the discussion to their own agenda. I fully expect to be attacked for that.

Our agenda is the facts of the case, not side issues such as was he raised properly.

[Cow Poke]

Our agenda is ONLY the facts of the case THAT SUPPORT OUR NARRATIVE...

fify / nc

[Charles]

I really don't expect respect from those trying to limit the discussion to their own agenda. I fully expect to be attacked for that.

You cut out the most important part so i will quote DivineOb in full to show that your response does not adress his point:

You can do whatever you want, CP. But I (and we) don't have to give you respect for it.

In response to Elena Mukhina breaking her neck should we have spent time "looking at the fact" of her not-fully-healed leg? Or focus on the core issue which more clearly affects the largest group of people, many of whom would break their neck even if they were in perfect health beforehand? Wasn't it the right call to ban the Thomas Salto without even looking for contributing factors?

[Charles]

You asked about facts, then you switch to "points". Please try again.

Nope, I did not, but I can see you want to continue to cover up for those who only care about certain "facts".

[oxmixmudd]

You guys constantly objecting to ALL the facts being laid out there ON A DISCUSSION board? Yes.

Really, Jim, why don't you start your own board where you can control ALL the content.

I was clear in my post CP. The issue is not a resistance to seeing/hearing ALL the facts, but rather your focus and emphasis on ONLY the ones that smeared Arbery.

And since you cut away that content, all you are doing is responding to a hand crafted straw-man that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

[Cow Poke]

I was clear in my post CP. The issue is you DID NOT focus on ALL the facts, but only the ones that smeared Arbery.

Collectively, Jim. When one side is only focusing on the facts that support their narrative, then I don't need to include THOSE facts or suppositions or theories.

And since you cut away that content, all you are doing is responding to a hand crafted straw-man that has nothing to do with the argument I made.

Happy now?