Well, I wouldn’t have taken it upon myself to equate inquiring about your reasoning processes with venturing into the lightless tangled maze of a “rabbit hole”, but if that’s how you choose to characterize it, I’m not going to contradict you.
Isn’t the phrase “following someone down a rabbit hole” a direct reference to Alice in Wonderland? If so, Magiver didn’t compare his own thought process to a tangled, lightless warren, he compared it to a surrealist, cacophonous hellscape governed by incomprehensible rules, and filled with equal parts deliberate gibberish and cultural referents that have antiquated entirely out of the popular consciousness.
Kimstu asked you to define a term, because you appear to be angry about the way BLM used it. If you don’t have a definition of the term, how do you know to be angry about what BLM said about it?
Dafuq? You absolutely did use the term I asked you for your definition of. You are the only one to use it so far in this thread, AFAICT, except for me asking you what you meant by it. It is certainly not “the same terminology BLM used”.
Recap in detail:
In post #17, John Mace claimed to have pulled this quote from the BLM website:
I didn’t see a link in his post, and I can’t access the BLM website at present due to 503 errors, but that appears to be quoted from blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/.
Then in post #84, you responded to John’s post with:
And you followed that up in post #113 with:
By this point, your remarks seemed to be seriously distorting the sense of what the BLM quote actually said (and also to be getting into some peculiar shit like arbitrarily asserting what sort of family structure is “proper”). So in post #116 I pointed that out and asked for clarification of exactly what you meant:
And ever since then you’ve just been blowing smoke and dodging the question:
Come on Magiver, you’re the one who brought up the term “proper nuclear family”, which does not appear in the quoted BLM statement, and incorrectly claimed that the BLM movement was “attacking” the nuclear family and “protesting” it.
Either explain what you meant or admit that you weren’t really clear about what you were saying.
All the cases I found were cases where someone intentionally rammed someone else’s car but sometimes an assault on property is in fact the same as an assault on people.
A lot of law has changed since I went to law school. There once was a time when self defense was what is called an affirmative defense and the burden was on the killer to prove self defense, that apparently is not as universal as it once was.
I’m not defending this guy. I am having a little but of trouble understanding why they waited so long to charge this guy and only charged the guy when the tape was about to be released without suspecting that the prosecutor is a complicit scumbag.
Is that the criteria you would want applied to your kids if they were cops? You want them to wait until they HAVE to shoot in the face of IMMINENT DEADLY THREAT? I’m not saying that is what happens here but cops are not heroes, they are just doing a job. A dangerous (but not thankless) job, dealing with the worst elements of our society on a daily basis.
Cops have the police power and this usually means they never have the duty to retreat. We do not require them to walk away from conflict. We grant them with the ability to use force to keep the peace and that means they sometimes can and should use force even deadly force when you or I would go to jail for doing so.
I think the cop cold have gotten away with shooting Laquan, after all he was holding a knife and refused to obey orders to drop the knife, he had PCP in his system and he had been carjacking people (which could mean anything from verbal threats to Grand Theft Auto kick you in the face) but once he fell to the ground its really hard to imagine what sort of threat a guy with a knife might pose unless he is a ninja or Hawkeye the Avenger.
Is that the criteria you would want applied to your kids if they were cops? You want them to wait until they HAVE to shoot in the face of IMMINENT DEADLY THREAT?
Lethal force is supposed to be a last resort to be used when you have very good reason to believe that something worse is about to happen immediately if you don’t shoot now. Not a go-to response that you reach for whenever it seems plausible that you “could get away with it”.
You got me there. I did a search and didn’t see the phrase. But look at the effort you just went through. Yes, rabbit hole. You don’t want to posit a debate, you want to argue about what the definition of “is” is.
As I just pointed out, BLM has manage to increase the homicide rate through their efforts. But you want to argue about what the definition of a family is when you know this is part of the problem.
The result is also the top cop in Chi-town losing his job, the State’s Attorney in fear for her future employment, the Mayor himself on shaky ground, the Illinois Attorney General calling for the Federal investigation of the Chicago PD. So, yeah, foolish is entirely the wrong word to describe the movement.
The mayor was overwhelmingly reelected this year, he’s going nowhere. The BLM crybabies conveniently ignore the 9 year old shot which contributed highly to the police commissioner ouster. Lisa Madigan is simply pandering for political purposes. I don’t think another protest is going to met so peacefully. They completely shot their wad with their ridiculous trespassing.
I certainly don’t want to see any violence. But anarchy and trespassing can not stand. If there are future such protests which restrict access to businesses or public facilities , the police need to react swiftly. If the protestors refuse to disperse , then arrests need to be made and charges filed. Ideally, the use of tear gas can be avoided.
I’ve got no objection to an organized march as long as it proceeds peacefully down an prearranged route. My objection is to the chaos and anarchy by prohibiting entry and exit from innocent businesses just so the social justice warriors could complain.
Asking you what you mean by the statements you make is part of posting a debate. If you don’t want to defend your claim about a “proper nuclear family” being “the one thing that would help” disadvantaged black people, then don’t, but quit whining about having been called out on it.
You haven’t “pointed it out”, you’ve made it up. Other posters have already explained to you the absurdity of assuming that correlation equals causation. You have shown jack shit in the way of evidence that the recent rise in homicide rates is actually caused by BLM in any way.
If you’re going to change the subject, at least reach for a new assertion that is somewhat logically defensible.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
But you want to argue about what the definition of a family is when you know this is part of the problem.
[/QUOTE]
You’re the one who brought up the issue of what a “proper” family is. If you post something in Great Debates that you’re not willing to argue about, you have to expect some pushback.
You can’t just post indefensible bullshit and expect other posters not to challenge it, though I agree you seem to be giving it a jolly good try.
Dafuq? You absolutely did use the term I asked you for your definition of. You are the only one to use it so far in this thread, AFAICT, except for me asking you what you meant by it. It is certainly not “the same terminology BLM used”.