My argument is about what you really feel but are afraid to come out and say (or rather, that you couch it in terms that give you plausible deniability)
I have no doubts that you believe that law enforcement is overzealous in doing their duties, regarding POC, “peaceful protests” or anything that revolves around your political sphere.
I am still waiting on you to address the actual words you wrote.
I’ll wait (but I won’t hold my breath)
Cool! What number am I thinking of right now?
Do you also want to address what he said? Hive mind and all.
He said that if protesters adopt a certain protesting style, it would make it very difficult for the police to abuse their powers and make it very easy for the police to find the actual troublemakers.
So, will I meet my soul mate soon?
ETA: Bzzzzzzzz
Since you do indeed have mind reading powers, how is standing a threat to law enforcement? Also why is he asking (a pretty big one at that) for police to shoot people in the head with less lethal ammunition?
Jump on in!
Standing is not a threat to law enforcement. Why do you ask? He’s not asking for police to shoot people in the head with less lethal ammunition. Where do you get that?
I’m not the one claiming mind-reading powers, you are. And, for someone with ESP, you seem less skilled at reading comprehension.
Right there
I can’t read his/her mind (his, I think), but I think s/he’s saying that some cops seem to perceive it as such, which is why they gassed peaceful protesters in, for example, DC (and then lied about gassing them).
So, standing is not an actual threat to law enforcement, but since the police sometimes seem to think it is and react with rubber bullets and gas, by lying down, the protesters can remove any excuse to overreact by police. That seems to be the thrust of the argument.
So he didn’t really mean what he wrote, that he was entirely mistaken by saying, yet … He needed you to explain his own words.
Got it.
I agreed with his approach by the way, they should indeed do something to distance themselves from the trouble makers.
Hey, I’m not here to explain the English language to you, what context means, and so on. What he wrote was perfectly clear and if you choose to misinterpret it or are unable to correctly interpret it, that’s on you. It was clear to everyone else who has recently participated in this thread.
It was far from clear but people that rush to defend anything their side says is a given.
I’m not paying you for therapy
Ah, a mind reader are you?
If you can tell me what number I am thinking of, then I will accept your telepathic powers as a cite.
Otherwise, you are just putting words in my mouth, and whining that I won’t accept them.
The words that I wrote were specifically that it is unlikely that a protester who is laying down would be shot by “less lethal” munitions. What do you take exception to there?
What side? You agreed with his approach, so it seems we’re all on the same side.
I think I’ll back away from this conversation, because non-GD responses keep popping into my head. But, feel free to tell me what side I’m on, and also what’s my favorite color, since you’re all about mind-reading.
Then what is the big ask?
How is standing a threat to the cops?
So your problem was the statement that “Standing on two legs is a threat to cops?” That’s perfectly valid. Protesters get shot a whole bunch while doing nothing but standing, with the reasoning that they were being a threat to the police. It is a factual statement, that is backed by the police themselves.
Why do you think that one of the first things that they tell people to do in a potentially violent interaction is to get on the ground? Because they present less of a threat.
Unless you are trying to make the argument that the only reason that cops make suspects get on the ground is because they are bullies, and that laying prone is not a less threatening position than standing, you have completely lost any thread of coherency in your assertions.
Here is where exploring the English language would be useful.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/a-big-ask
So, if you had understood this rather common idiom, then you would understand that what I said was that it would be unlikely that cops would be performing this activity.
Reading dictionaries may serve you better than attempting to read minds, YMMV.
Dictionaries will not help you interpret this though:
Cops don’t shoot anyone for simply standing. Not ever
They may shoot them for not complying (and being threatening), they may shoot them for mistaking things for weapons, all kinds of reasons (some very likely bad ones), but never for simply standing.
So you write the hyperbolic shit you write to skirt the boundaries of what you really mean. It does nothing to further any discussion. Simply put, shit like that is trolling (yet, not one single other person on this board will call you out for it)
Didn’t you just write, (paraphrasing) I mean what I say and say what I mean in a different location on these very boards?
What hogwash that was eh?
And you just can’t admit to being wrong, about this or anything else. Maybe Ritter or one of the others will come along any time now to help defend what you said but didn’t really mean
Donavan La Bella would beg to differ.
Of course, this highlights the problem. The cops, and probably you, can spin any action into a threat. “He rolled a tear gas canister back into the street.” “I thought the stereo he was holding was a bomb.”
Yeah, “someone” runs out of the crowd and starts trouble. Not the whole crowd, one or two people. So, if that is what is happening, why are the police taking a military-line strategy, acting like some kind of King’s Army? They ought to instead have uniformed officers wandering around amongst the protesters looking for the instigators. Because mayhem is always started by a few individuals, and those people should not be that hard to identify from within the crowd.
Nothing that you have said is remotely related to reality, and I am tired of it.
You are accusing me of “wrongthink”, you are saying that you know what is in my mind, better than I, and that you cannot be wrong about your interpretation.
I did ask moderation to take a look at your accusation of trolling, but other than that, I think that any further discussion with you has no possibility of being productive.
Yes, he is. He’s in the right. Your “arguments” are poor.