ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Also, Jussie Smollett apparently walked free, after breaking the law.

I'm honestly interested if an federal investigation is going to happen for how hilariously bad it was handled.

Agreed that it was handled poorly. I'm disappointed that the fool will not spend time in jail. I'm pleased that his acting career is probably over. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Federal investigation of what? Are you being serious? Similar "injustice" probably happens many times a week. The difference is that this was in the national news.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Also, Jussie Smollett apparently walked free, after breaking the law.

I'm honestly interested if an federal investigation is going to happen for how hilariously bad it was handled.

Agreed that it was handled poorly. I'm disappointed that the fool will not spend time in jail. I'm pleased that his acting career is probably over. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Federal investigation of what? Are you being serious? Similar "injustice" probably happens many times a week. The difference is that this was in the national news.

Isn't politics fun? Jussie Smollett doing a reversal accusing the two brothers who attacked him lying. Demanding an apology from Chicago's mayor and Chicago's police. You shouldn't declare someone under investigation guilty before going to trial.

"Police, judges and prosecutors all have the legal obligation to not pursue sanctions against an innocent person."

Am I right? What happen to Presumption of innocence?

"

Turtledove wrote:

Agreed that it was handled poorly. I'm disappointed that the fool will not spend time in jail.

Yeah, god it was shitshow.

"

I'm pleased that his acting career is probably over. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Federal investigation of what? Are you being serious? Similar "injustice" probably happens many times a week. The difference is that this was in the national news.

Well, the Chicago Police Union is pushing for a federal investigation into Kim Foxx, the prosecutor, for connections she had with Smolett's family.

It's fairly known she has a friend, who literally put her into contact with Smolett's family. And yeah, it's not hard to put two and two together. It's a family friend, get my kid out of jail. Sure, I'll get the charges dropped.

I mean the decision is so fucking baffling that if that didn't happen, I'm not sure what did. And with a breach of conduct like that, I'm not sure the feds can avoid at least looking into the matter.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

Seriously? Do you actually know what the definition of racist is?

I do, but you obviously missed the point of my post by a large margin.

You just missrepresented Pneuma saying he doesn't care about the lives of fellow Americans which has nothing to do with social health-care.

So i thought it was fair to obviously missrepresent you to make a point.
Which went so far above your head you actually took offense before contemplating what i was doing while i even wrote it down explicitly.

Peace,

-Boem-

I wasn't taking offence, I was just aghast that you'd stoop to making such a crass comment that you obviously didn't know the meaning of the word. Clearly I was wrong, it was crass for the sack of being crass.

Anyway, I'm out the cult won.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Two wrongs, don't make a right. It doesn't make you any less of a dick, if you decide to do the same thing. It doesn't make a big difference that you gave a note, to give yourself a morally ambiguous way out of the conversation.

I mean, I had my fair share of flipping out if I think someone is being dishonest, but I'm not gonna pretend that my behavior was justified. I get angry and say stupid shit.

And if someone calls me out on it. I'll be like, yeah, that wasn't really the right thing to do back there. I might be totally right, but acting like a douche isn't what I should be doing.

There is nothing morally ambigous about being polite to another person three times and asking them to stop lying and then lying in their face, saying your doing it and provoking introspection.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

It'd be better if you clarified what you meant in your example about punching someone. You were being evasive on the topic, and I was trying to pin down your reasoning.

No, it'd be better if you clarified why you want to put physical harm and moral fraud on the same moral wavelength and clarify what your attempting to do.
Because like it or not, words dont physically harm people and they are not the same moral context AT ALL.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Yeah, but that behavior, where you have to get back at anyone who wrongs you is what exacerbates and poisons any discussion. How is everyone suppose to know exactly what you consider bad-faith.

Something rather benign or said offhandedly could offend you, and you get into a litany of toxic conversations because you can't control yourself. There is a healthy way to deal with it, and then there is throwing a tantrum.

Yes, how is anybody to know that lying and missrepresenting others in an open forum disccusion is "acting in bad faith", my moral boundary's are so illusive for others to comprehend.

There is a very healthy way of dealing with it, which i did and that's asking the other person to stop continueing this behavior for the sake of the conversation and the group.

There is no "getting back" at someone. Maybe you wanna make it out to be the case, that's fine.
But i have no issue with excluding a person from courtesy if they cannot play by the normal rule-book of a healthy conversation.

If you wanna play the knight with the moral high-ground, i suggest you take the right people to defend.

Providing courtesy and credibility to people that have proven they don't deserve it isn't moral, that's the basis for abusive relationships for example.

Nuance and all that, i'm not on some moral slippery slope but consistent, that also means being crass to people who don't deserve other threatment if they still insist in following the conversation or giving input without playing by the rules others are clearly following.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Kellog wrote:

I wasn't taking offence, I was just aghast that you'd stoop to making such a crass comment that you obviously didn't know the meaning of the word. Clearly I was wrong, it was crass for the sack of being crass.

Anyway, I'm out the cult won.

Of course it was crass for the sake of being crass.

You think implying somebody else doesn't care for human lives because they don't wanna support a certain health-care model is not?

I am perfectly aware of what i did, hench why i explained it in the post itself.

I just don't know if you are, you insult the character of another person without a second thought and then jump on the obvious bait "racist" instead of contemplating why i did that.

For the record i don't think your a racist, i was just making an outlandish claim based on no factual evidence or logical reasoning.

I did exactly what you did to pneuma.

If you don't appreciate what i did, think about the why and then come back.
I don't have to play by the "mutual respect" rule-set if you can't act in that fashion either.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

It'd be better if you clarified what you meant in your example about punching someone. You were being evasive on the topic, and I was trying to pin down your reasoning.

No, it'd be better if you clarified why you want to put physical harm and moral fraud on the same moral wavelength and clarify what your attempting to do.
Because like it or not, words dont physically harm people and they are not the same moral context AT ALL.

Interesting that these words are coming from the fellow that believes that there was no human right violated when Khasoggi was murdered because a human right to life doesn't exist.

"

faerwin wrote:

So, when Trump refuse to acknowledge that one side went WAY too far and instead, try to demonize the counter-protesters AND glorify the protester part, you get this situation where it's obvious that he's supportive of the racist acts that happened.

Nope. It's only "obvious" if you have the same thought process as Turtledove (and most of the fake news agitators) which I described earlier.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

It'd be better if you clarified what you meant in your example about punching someone. You were being evasive on the topic, and I was trying to pin down your reasoning.

No, it'd be better if you clarified why you want to put physical harm and moral fraud on the same moral wavelength and clarify what your attempting to do.
Because like it or not, words dont physically harm people and they are not the same moral context AT ALL.

Interesting that these words are coming from the fellow that believes that there was no human right violated when Khasoggi was murdered because a human right to life doesn't exist.

Not really, my point was that human rights have been violated continuesly in Turkey and nobody condemned it.(thus it is not really a right in that geographical location)

It's called a double standart.

Obama even openly supported erdogan while paying "lip service" to human rights.

I tried to bring you up to speed on the region to demonstrate this point, but you seemed more inclined to justify your point of view on trump then to look at the factual history in the region and America's involvement in it.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Not really, my point was that human rights have been violated continuesly in Turkey and nobody condemned it.(thus it is not really a right in that geographical location)

It's called a double standart.

All that I was arguing was that human rights existed in Turkey. You argued that they didn't exist because they were violated. Then I argued that violation of those human rights did not mean that they didn't exist, it meant they needed to be strengthened.

Your position that they didn't exist really made no sense. Even from the perspective of your statement above. If they didn't even exist then how the heck can you say that something that doesn't exist is being violated?

Anyway, I'm sorry I brought it up, you obviously are thinking about it in a way that makes no sense to me.