Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:36 pm Here is a quote from a typical Liberal Race Baiter:
"Maybe if police stop shooting young black men in the street or black women in their beds, much less kneeling on a man’s neck while he begs for his mother, we might have less riots".

Here is my reply to him:
You are in effect saying that the Police are, Without Cause, shooting Black Men in the streets. You make it sound like some kind of sport. You know there are reasons that the Police shoot anyone, but you ignore the reasons and just announce the outcome as if there was no reason for the Police to shoot anyone. Then you say that they kill Black Women in their beds as if this happens all the time. Of course, you don't mention that the Police were fired on first. Everybody knows this was a completely botched Police operation. It is clear that Race had nothing to do with it. When you Race Bait the issue you are sinking to the lowest low of Depravity and Corruption that is at the heart of the Liberal/Media/Politician problem. Do you even know that "Kneeling on the Neck" like that was a standard Police technique in that city? Do you know that the technique was applied over 400 times to Black and White offenders since 2012? This is probably a bad Police technique now, since someone has died from it. But it was certainly not a Racist act by the Police. You incite hatred for the Police by making it a Racist act. You are down in the gutter with the worst Race Baiting Liberal/Media/Politicians.

This is an example of the sewage that Liberal/Media/Commentators/Politicians spew out every day. When you talk about Police that way I can think of three reasons. You are either completely Corrupted by the Liberal/Media/Politicians, you are a Depraved liar just trying to cause trouble in the cities, or you are simply having Paranoid Delusions about the Police.

The people that have been getting shot and killed are criminals who try to fight with the Police. In fact quite a few of these criminals go completely berserk, depending on which drugs they are on. The Liberal/Media/Politicians should be telling the criminals that they should stop resisting arrest. It’s so simple. Why do they instead try to amplify the myths about Police Racism and Brutality? They purposely scare these people (criminals watch the Liberal/Media and listen to the Liberal Politicians too) into resisting arrest, making them think they will be killed if they don’t get away. Then when they do resist and fight with the Police, some of them get shot and killed. The Liberal/Media/Politicians seem to incite Resisting and Fighting with the Police and could be directly responsible for these deaths. Why do they do this?
Far too much idiotic groupism to take seriously.
Skepdick
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

Post by Skepdick »

gaffo wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:06 am to life, basically.

if you do the above, and the subject survives, then "no fowl", if the subjects dies then "fowl" the oppressed was deny his Natural Law Rights to life.

------------

of course i affirm NL, and just clairified its limits per history/philosophy/etc..............as limited. see above -


torchure is ok as long as the subject does not die. per NL, not my law, i have a higher standard............but per nl, the foundation.

NL is the base minimum, and welcome more than NL..............so better to not torture/etc................
So where do you think NL stands on me holding higher standards, and violently retaliating against torture?
Where does NL stand if I happen to kill my torturer in the process of ensuring my own bodily integrity?

Where does NL stand on self-defence?
gaffo
Posts: 3671
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

Post by gaffo »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:14 am
So where do you think NL stands on me holding higher standards,
your views beyond or not beyond NL would be irrelivent to NL God/s

per a/the? NL God, as long as you affirm the "Natural God Law" then you are good, your views of "life/liberty/etc beyond that - if you deny or affirm, are illelivent, since the foundation is the bare minimum and to which you agree with the Natural Law Gods.

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:14 am and violently retaliating against torture?
just using horse sense here,so not one of the Natural Law Gods, just a pleab ant mortal man, to me i would think that if one were torchuring me i would think torchure were a form of violence, and so retaliating to that violence - in proportion - (why i affirm Judaism and not lovey dovey Christians (fuck my enemies) - reciprocrity. so the first violence was interigation the torchure to you, then per recipricity (Judaism - which i affirm by character - not faith, i am an Athiest) one who is being torchured have the right and my blessing (even if he a thug like Osama Bin Ladden - etc/........................do you know about the terrorists leader that had his feet beaten to bedly by ameicans - 12 yrs ago - bagram - that he died?

that is The State - MY STATE taking an prob terrorist asshole's life - but without a trial, and his life was taken not by the rule of law butthe US military beating to death, via buy bloodclots in his feet via illegal torchure by American soldiers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


this is reprehesible. no rule of law - just thuggery.


Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:14 am Where does NL stand if I happen to kill my torturer in the process of ensuring my own bodily integrity?
??? try english?

Skepdick wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:14 am Where does NL stand on self-defence?
Clear - the most clear other the others of liberty/property/contentment/etc.


CLEAR as CLEAR can be - NL's central philosophy is The Right to continue to be alive.

from a millinia to today.


so - if full asshole plugs a kid robbing his store:

1. if kid robs store with a knife, is asshole gun carrier (store owner) under NL has the right to shoot kid with a knife? - mostly depends upon credl threalt, usually no, a kid with knife asshole with gun - taking the kids life in the comision of robery would in the ideal world give the kid 4 yrs after a fair trial.

2. i same kid had a gun - in above - the the same cenerio changes - so killing the kid become more legal per NL - perceived threat to one life.

--------------

its all about horse sense - what threat is reasonable, are you unreasonable and think all others are a threat when they are not? (a guy in Austin - runner - was shot dead by a woman that had been raped yrs earlier (so she was hyper and non-horse hence (unreasonable) - long story short - the guy died, for no reasonable sence, the killer served time for being unreasonable for shooting a guy for jogging down her street.



BTW the above is also similar in my state 8 yrs ago, a Walgreens manager was robbed by a black 14 yr old (and 2 of this friends) - The Walgreens employee shot him (i.e. one of the 3 had a gun and one of them presented it in during the robbery). 6 times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he shot him ONCE - and so the kid now on the floor, now longer a threat (so under NL - the shot by Ersalind(sp) is fully legal..............per SELF DEFENSE!!!!!! threat nutralized.

so why did the asshole shoot the thugy kid - lying unconscience/and maybe dying - 5 MORE TIMES?????????????????

why not due to NL - kid was no longer a theat after the legal first shot, he was no longer a theat because all was on vid camera, and the wallgreens worker turned his back (sop he turned his back after shooting the first shot into the kid forehead) -so no longer a threat, (ie. the shooter knew the kid was no longer a threat, VIA his turning his back to him and the taking a minute to reload his pistal - and then shooting the kid 5/6 more times in the head - thus killing him.

the last 5/6 shots were done out of anger "I'm tired of being robbed"

to that i say, yes, i would be too, so why did you kill the kid via 5/6 more shots after you nutralized him with the first shot?

"i was mad at being robbed" - i suspect would be his reply.

mine is

so? what relivence if being mad at a robber you nutralized with your first shot have to do with making sure he dies with the next 5^ shot?

Esaniling is still in jail - 8 yrs now - i give credit to Prator, who values right and wrong, instead of feelings-partisanship. he convicted the thug for legal reasons and ignored the public outcry.

legal to plug a robber (if they have a gun /or present a reasonalbe threat via knife) - not legal to shoot him many times more after he is not the floor and no longer a threat (I don't give a shit about "feeling good to make sure" - only about NL/rule of law ).

better to know yourself and to allow you feeling bad about allowing a dick robber live after you shot him once to incapisitate, than to kill a the same guy because in the heat of the moment you are mad about being robbed.

the self aware and moral person would prefer to shoot the guy once and stop the commusion of the crime, over steping outside the legality of NL and becoming judge and executioner and shoot the robber to make a couple of points (1. I'm mad,robbing is bad (duh) 2. fuck that guy, kill him so he will mot rob me agian
Post Reply