Why aren't we having a National conversation about Leftist violence?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You already admitted in this thread that you wanted to participate in pedophilia with your teachers when you were a kid as reason why you post all the articles about teacher pedophilia. That you vicariously relive that still is extremely telling as to your disposition toward recent events: you don't see anything wrong with it.

In the most recent post when people criticized the teacher you defended her stating that they were just the statements of the sexually frustrated. That is defending a pedophile in and of itself, dimwit.

You also told us that you set expectations on others based on what you expected of yourself.

What then are we supposed to make of you saying that Hastert's victims were willing after you revel in other teachers having sex with willing teens? You obviously think consent exonerates the behavior. You can call it acquiesce or whatever but its there just the same.

Are you a registered sex offender?

Triggered

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You throw the term slave in knowing exactly what it implies.
Stop with your gibberish and need to one up.
You know exactly what I stated and exactly what I mean.

Stop with the juvenile distortions. I know exactly where the OP and others are coming from.
You are implying violence IN THIS CASE is a way. It's not. It's counterproductive and you know this.

"Turn the other cheek " just where the fck did I state this? This is a GD presidential election, not a revolution. Now I'm going to pull your : Is this how you make America better since it's so Fd up Mr. FuzzyTrump revolution? That article is . This is a presidential election.

I said slave morality which was termed by Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality

There is a wiki page to assuage your ignorance. He was in Prussia in the 18th century and while I'm sure that he was aware of the existence of US slaves, I doubt that he thought in terms of their dialect.

Don't tell me what I know. Speak for yourself. I don't think like you nor do I wish to. I take things on a case by case basis and judge on the merits of what actually happened. I refuse to paint that broad a brush so spare me your universals. Violence can be an effective solution in some cases.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Triggered

So this is the part where you think I am mad and get your jollies?

[pgardn]

I said slave morality which was termed by Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality

There is a wiki page to assuage your ignorance. He was in Prussia in the 18th century and while I'm sure that he was aware of the existence of US slaves, I doubt that he thought in terms of their dialect.

Don't tell me what I know. Speak for yourself. I don't think like you nor do I wish to. I take things on a case by case basis and judge on the merits of what actually happened. I refuse to paint that broad a brush so spare me your universals. Violence can be an effective solution in some cases.

Im am telling you what you know.

Violence is counterproductive in this situation.
Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im am telling you what you know.

Violence is counterproductive in this situation.
Period.

Which situation? There have been several. You don't even seem to grasp anything beyond your blanket condemnation. I don't know enough to pass judgment myself.

[pgardn]

Which situation? There have been several. You don't even seem to grasp anything beyond your blanket condemnation. I don't know enough to pass judgment myself.

During Trump rallies. The ones democratic candidates have already condemned but you and others try to go on with the but, but, but...
Especially after the putrid article trying to excuse the violence and attempting to excuse the violence by bringing up cases that had little to nothing in common with the incidents referred to. Again, since you appear to like to slither and basically produce disingenuous arguments for the sake of arguing:

Violent attacks on Trump supporters at Trump rallies as we have seen during this presidential election are counterproductive.

Period.

Now go pull a SA by finding a video that shows Trump supporters throwing sucker punches at a Hillary rally so we can condemn this as well.

And if you don't know enough, don't post in the first place. You present a disingenuous argument by trying to widen the incidents referred to by myself and then claim to not know enough.... Jesus. Clean up the act.

[pgardn]

He has a point about his rhetoric and the Civil Right era violence.

NYT piece was also cited in the article:



How about Trump and the GOP take responsibility for the rhetoric as opposed to the narrative we are being fed here.

These snippets above are exactly why you don't react to this guy with violence. And yes, they are highly snipped for effect. Trump is constantly digging himself holes yet people want to give him a way to climb out by reacting violently? The juxtaposition with the civil rights movement is of course highly dubious as some of these demonstrators were attempting to interrupt the rally and letting the speaker speak. Let him speak. Let him walk off the ledge.

As a wider topic I don't think people get why Trump has gained so much popularity. He has definitely mined the white male frustrated with low wages. He has tapped that mine which infuriates old guard Republicans. The very base uneducated populous reaction gained through the blaming Mexico, Muslims, etc... is evident and strong. This need to scapegoat a certain group of people gains steam when the blamed react back violently. Or the so called intellectuals compare this with a Nazi phenomena to rationalize the violence. This is not postwar WW1 Germany. If these so called intellectuals think it is post war Germany then they to have bought into the "make America great again" BS as well. Exactly what time periods was America great? At what point in the past are we aiming for now? Do we wish to reconstruct post WW2 50s? What?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

These snippets above are exactly why you don't react to this guy with violence. And yes, they are highly snipped for effect. Trump is constantly digging himself holes yet people want to give him a way to climb out by reacting violently? The juxtaposition with the civil rights movement is of course highly dubious as some of these demonstrators were attempting to interrupt the rally and letting the speaker speak. Let him speak. Let him walk off the ledge.

As a wider topic I don't think people get why Trump has gained so much popularity. He has definitely mined the white male frustrated with low wages. He has tapped that mine which infuriates old guard Republicans. The very base uneducated populous reaction gained through the blaming Mexico, Muslims, etc... is evident and strong. This need to scapegoat a certain group of people gains steam when the blamed react back violently. Or the so called intellectuals compare this with a Nazi phenomena to rationalize the violence. This is not postwar WW1 Germany. If these so called intellectuals think it is post war Germany then they to have bought into the "make America great again" BS as well. Exactly what time periods was America great? At what point in the past are we aiming for now? Do we wish to reconstruct post WW2 50s? What?

His rhetoric and policy propositions are more comparable to the European fascists than any other presidential candidates in the last 100 years. HE gets routinely compared to George Wallace The xenophobic racism, talk of national glory, and heavy handed treatment of political enemies are all hallmarks and Wallace was the tamest of the three. Trump and the fascists supporters are and were the uneducated dispossessed majority. Wallace had the poor white southerners.

You can pretend that that can never happen again but history repeats itself constantly particularly amongst the uneducated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

During Trump rallies. The ones democratic candidates have already condemned but you and others try to go on with the but, but, but...
Especially after the putrid article trying to excuse the violence and attempting to excuse the violence by bringing up cases that had little to nothing in common with the incidents referred to. Again, since you appear to like to slither and basically produce disingenuous arguments for the sake of arguing:

Violent attacks on Trump supporters at Trump rallies as we have seen during this presidential election are counterproductive.

Period.

Now go pull a SA by finding a video that shows Trump supporters throwing sucker punches at a Hillary rally so we can condemn this as well.

And if you don't know enough, don't post in the first place. You present a disingenuous argument by trying to widen the incidents referred to by myself and then claim to not know enough.... Jesus. Clean up the act.

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

[DarrinS]

^Man, some people are just snotty little es.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^Man, some people are just snotty little es.

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

[DarrinS]

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

sophist? that hurts

[TheSanityAnnex]

So this is the part where you think I am mad and get your jollies?

No this is the part where I say you have no impulse control with your ignore list.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You know what's funny, and why you are a complete and total piece of ?

You actually are so ing blinded by the need for others to think for you, you think you have a point. It's like oj thinking after awhile he really didn't cut Nicole's head off.

The saddest part is there are so many of you, weak/scared/insecure/worthless, that it's ruined this country.

I showed you violence. I showed your hero candidate inciting said violence. You did exactly what I said you were going to do. Ignore what your eyes see and ears hear out of fear of upsetting the brain that you depend on to think for you. Don't want to have to take responsibility for thinking on your own, you're just as worthless as a hipster millennial.

Kill yourself asap, you've stolen oxygen long enough.

You know what's funny, you still haven't backed your claim up. You claimed that violence at Trump rallies, by Trump supporters was far more prevalent. Back it up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sophist? that hurts

Posturing is droll your impudence rings hollow. You stopped arguing on merit and are afraid to discuss the science on climate issues because you've been made to look stupid so many times. Your tailing and whinging serves to point to cause.

Post another smilie if it makes you feel better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No this is the part where I say you have no impulse control with your ignore list.

You've been desperate to try and pin that on me since I equated you to a dog. I don't use the ignore list for avoidance, dimwit. I use it for control.

You get off to the immediate attention when you spam. I took that away from you. It was amusing when I first did it and it remains amusing now. You obviously don't like it and that suits me just fine.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You've been desperate to try and pin that on me since I equated you to a dog. I don't use the ignore list for avoidance, dimwit. I use it for control.

You get off to the immediate attention when you spam. I took that away from you. It was amusing when I first did it and it remains amusing now. You obviously don't like it and that suits me just fine.

More lack of impulse control

[pgardn]

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

And I gave you a SPECIFIC scenario. Go back and read.

Just stop.

[pgardn]

And some people are intellectual cowards, sophists, and rely on deception. I'll take arrogant.

You just described yourself.
Congrats.

[pgardn]

My point was to try and get you to look at a case by case basis rather than your blanket condemnation. I set a high standard of proof for condemnation and there are various disparate incidents. I am not without a clue to the specifics but have far less information than I require. Your standards of proof are poor. I am satisfied with the legal process however and as I pointed out many of the accused will ahve their day in court. The status quo suits me just fine.

And what on Earth do Democratic leaders positions have to do with anything? Of course they are going to say the politically correct thing to suit the LCD. I don't waste my time with posturing. I think for myself. You should try it.

You cannot even address what the article says. You just go with another blanket dismissal. The article particularly addresses the blanket dismissal and correctly points out that violence does work with empirical examples. He doesn't use a blanket statement but rather insists a more nuanced look at the issue. You aren't ready for that.

Bs

The article clearly tries to link this with the at Trump rallies. Otherwise it would have been written at a different time.

The big picture view outside of the Trump rallies has always been a salient morality question. This is not something new. You think this is some sort of eye opener? Good for you, it's been discussed for ages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You just described yourself.
Congrats.

Thanks Pee Wee.

What argument for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the facts determine the truth have I made?
What argument have I run away from rather than admit that I was wrong?
What have I intentionally mislead people about?

You just seem upset frankly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bs

The article clearly tries to link this with the at Trump rallies. Otherwise it would have been written at a different time.

The big picture view outside of the Trump rallies has always been a salient morality question. This is not something new. You think this is some sort of eye opener? Good for you, it's been discussed for ages.

You need to learn what mutually exclusive means. Your attempt at deduction fails that test. He still makes the case I stated. Your interpretation does not exclude it in the least.

You espoused slave morality of moral relativism before and as I already said, I reject that methodology. I don't bother with such things as most often they boil down to personal preferences. Case by case basis determined by objective fact. Your blanket ideology is very droll to me. Just because it is salient to you doesn't mean its salient to me.

Tell me more about what "I already know."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I gave you a SPECIFIC scenario. Go back and read.

Just stop.

You again miss the point. I get you are trying to conflate the rock throwers with the rest. I told you before I don't think like that and instead a case by case basis. Perhaps one day you will catch up.

[pgardn]

His rhetoric and policy propositions are more comparable to the European fascists than any other presidential candidates in the last 100 years. HE gets routinely compared to George Wallace The xenophobic racism, talk of national glory, and heavy handed treatment of political enemies are all hallmarks and Wallace was the tamest of the three. Trump and the fascists supporters are and were the uneducated dispossessed majority. Wallace had the poor white southerners.

You can pretend that that can never happen again but history repeats itself constantly particularly amongst the uneducated.

Repeats itself. WTF does that even mean?

Oh , people disagree and kill each other, history has exactly replicated itself once again. People are wary of other cultures, big news. History repeats itself, xenophobia exists.

And you are the one who accused me of making simpleton blanket statements...

[pgardn]

Thanks Pee Wee.

What argument for a conclusion as opposed to allowing the facts determine the truth have I made?
What argument have I run away from rather than admit that I was wrong?
What have I intentionally mislead people about?

You just seem upset frankly.

You refer to me as Pee Wee and then claim I am upset..

Seriously.


And Frankly? Like you have been holding back and now you need to reveal your earthshaking Dr. Phil psychoanalysis?
Christ.

Please stop.