Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Thermal]

Ya or we could not act like slobbering idiots and say that both are powerfully wrong, and there is nothing to cheer about in either.

When the good guys start acting like the bad guys, but still think they are justified, they have turned a bad corner. They are falling down a slippery slope like one of those power drops at Disney.

Irs fine if you want to talk about how this guy deserved it. Just check your moral hat at the door. You have committed to being an *******.

 

[plague311]

Ya or we could not act like slobbering idiots and say that both are powerfully wrong, and there is nothing to cheer about in either.

Yet only one person is in actual trouble for their actions. Think about that.

When the good guys start acting like the bad guys, but still think they are justified, they have turned a bad corner. They are falling down a slippery slope like one of those power drops at Disney.

Which, of course, isn't happening here. So there's no real concern.

Irs fine if you want to talk about how this guy deserved it. Just check your moral hat at the door. You have committed to being an *******.

Again, for like the thousandth time, no one is saying he deserved it. Just that we're not sad that it happened.

Is there something being lost in translation here? Are there words that are giving you guys this impression that I'm not seeing? The closest I can find is ST's statements, but even those aren't saying it's justified. Just funny that someone talked **** and got checked.

Seriously, what is happening here that is causing this to be repeated ad nauseum?

 

[Thermal]

Yet only one person is in actual trouble for their actions. Think about that.

A 27 year old man attacked a 77 year old man and killed him, over words, and posters here think it's a hoot. Think about that.

Again, for like the thousandth time, no one is saying he deserved it. Just that we're not sad that it happened.

"Not sad" is one thing. "Not being outraged over a young guy killing a senior citizen" is more on the mark.

Again, also for the thousandth time, if these two were close in age it wouldn't bat an eye. Guys square off over talk on the daily, and accidental skull cracking resulting in death will happen.

What's concerning here is this blaise attitude towards a young guy attacking and killing a senior citizen who posed no threat, no matter how repulsive the geezer may have been. We see this casual tolerance of disproportionate violence increasing from the mouths of the self-proclaimed Good Guys. It's not good, man. The good guys don't root for the Punisher.

And yes, with every time you mutter under your breath that it was not ideal, then shriek loudly and for pages that the coot was a racist pedo not worth shedding a tear over, you miss the mark and your subtext is crystal clear.

 

[plague311]

A 27 year old man attacked a 77 year old man and killed him, over words, and posters here think it's a hoot. Think about that.

Yes, oversimplifications do make it seem absurd, doesn't it? When you leave out the entirety of context and give no details surrounding it, you can make it sound significantly worse than it was. There's a name for that.

"Not sad" is one thing. "Not being outraged over a young guy killing a senior citizen" is more on the mark.

Again, extreme oversimplification at work. This wasn't some young guy who walked into a senior citizen's house and killed him because he screamed "Apple Pie!" out of his house's window. It's only "more on the mark" because it supports your own bias. It's extremely transparent.

Also, for the thousandth time, if these two were close in age it wouldn't bat an eye. Guys square off over talk on the daily, and accidental skull cracking resulting in death will happen.

What's concerning here is this blaise attitude towards a young guy attacking and killing a senior citizen who posed no threat, no matter how repulsive the geezer may have been. We see this casual tolerance of disproportionate violence increasing from the mouths of the self-proclaimed Good Guys. It's not good, man. The good guys don't root for the Punisher.

Good guys rooted for The Punisher all of the ******* time. Seriously, all of the time. Especially depending on your definition of "good guys". Read a comic.

Secondly, again, you're purposefully phrasing this to maximize bias towards Pujols. Even saying "attacking" is overzealous. He punched him, once. After the man trespassed to come in and verbally assault the workers after already doing it to the drive-thru person. Do you mention that? HELL NO. Why? It doesn't fit the bias way you're explaining what happened.

Also, no one is rooting for him. Did you not read my previous post? I've seen people say he doesn't deserve much jail time, and that no one is shedding tears for the old man. Who here is "rooting" for Pujols? You guys know we can read the thread, right?

And yes, with every time you mutter under your breath that it was not ideal, then shriek loudly and for pages that the coot was a racist pedo not worth shedding a tear over, you miss the mark and your subtext is crystal clear.

No idea what the **** this means at all. My subtext, and I'll lay it out so clearly that it's unmistakable, is that Pujols shouldn't have attacked this man for what he said; however, given that he did and we found out the character of this man, I'm not going to shed a tear or lose any sleep because it happened.

I have no other subtext.

 

[Thermal]

@plague311:

You're not hearing me. What concerns me here is that posters are so entranced with the idea of a racist getting what's coming to him that they are glossing right over how horrific what Pujols did was. A little lip service about how "yeah, it was wrong" ain't really cutting it. Beating an old man into a grave is not a small thing.

As I've said, I think provocation should be taken farther, sometimes to the point of treating a provoked blow as self defense, or at least the second shot in a fight. I'm basically with Pujols here, except for the old man angle. That's crossing a behavioral line I'm not okay with.

Would you be okay with a 27 yr old man smashing and killing an old lady, for her rudeness? I got lines, man, and this crosses one.

 

[plague311]

@plague311:

You're not hearing me. What concerns me here is that posters are so entranced with the idea of a racist getting what's coming to him that they are glossing right over how horrific what Pujols did was. A little lip service about how "yeah, it was wrong" ain't really cutting it. Beating an old man into a grave is not a small thing.

You're doing it again...I don't know why, I don't know what you think you're gaining by using hyperbole, but it's eye-rollingly transparent.

The "old man" you're referring to was the one that escalated this encounter at every. single. possible. opportunity. Yet, you're not using any hyperbole when describing him, and you completely leave all of his actions out. It's only "senior citizen" and "old man", etc. Why is that?

Trust me, I'm hearing you just fine.

As I've said, I think provocation should be taken farther, sometimes to the point of treating a provoked blow as self defense, or at least the second shot in a fight. I'm basically with Pujols here, except for the old man angle. That's crossing a behavioral line I'm not okay with.

Ok, and literally ******* no one is arguing with that. No one is saying Pujols should have punched him, or that it was the right thing to do, or that it was proper behavior, or even condoning Pujols punching pedo McRapey. Nobody.

AGAIN, we have one person that's saying it's funny and a bit ironic that this old man's anger led to his death. We have people saying Pujols was wrong, but the pedo was no great loss. No one is asking you to be okay with it. Absolutely no one. You're arguing against a point no one is making. That's what you're missing.

Would you be okay with a 27 yr old man smashing and killing an old lady, for her rudeness? I got lines, man, and this crosses one.

Would I be ok with a completely different scenario with absolutely no context or reasoning behind the confrontation or situation? I have no idea. I generally don't answer questions about made up scenarios.

 

[Warp12]

Yeah, Thermal...get the context right. He called Pujols a name...TWICE. Then Pujols struck the 77 y/o in the head, which led to his death.

Plus, the victim was wearing tartan socks and pastel sweats. And some other important context stuff.

 

[plague311]

Yeah, Thermal...get the context right. He called Pujols a name...TWICE. Then Pujols struck the 77 y/o in the head, which led to his death.

Plus, the victim was wearing tartan socks and pastel sweats. And some other important context stuff.

Oh, look who decided to join the thread again and conveniently ignore all of the callouts. Welcome back, Warp12.

I love that your answer to Thermal's hyperbole and oversimplification is to double down and post something equal in value. You guys should form a group. You can call it "The Hyperbole's". Maybe a barbershop duet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yet only one person is in actual trouble for their actions. Think about that.

I'm trying hard to think about how the US justice system would go about charging and trying a dead person...

 

[plague311]

I'm trying hard to think about how the US justice system would go about charging and trying a dead person...

Probably because you misread what was being stated in Thermal's comment, and my reply.

Thermal was replying to someone who brought up the fact that in Florida if someone throws popcorn at you, you can then shoot them because you 'feared for your life'. Which is absolute ********. The man who did the shooting after suffering the viscous popcorn assault was acquitted because....Florida.

Maybe that helps. I wasn't, nor am I now, implying that either of the dead men in those two situations should be charged or tried. That would be stupid.

ETA: Though if the old man were still alive I wouldn't be against charging him with trespassing or some form of harassment, despite being punched in the face. In fact, had he lived I would bet that Pujols wouldn't have been charged with much at all. Maybe, MAYBE a misdemeanor.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I so wish that Pujols had just acted like he was going to hit the guy, then guy flinches and falls to hit his head in a fatal way. Because then I would know I was back in law school.

I don’t find the rancid man’s death to be good, but it does seem like he died doing what he loved. So that should bring his family some peace.

 

[Warp12]

I don’t find the rancid man’s death to be good, but it does seem like he died doing what he loved. So that should bring his family some peace.

That sounds like you are channeling Tucker Carlson, referring to the Rittenhouse case. He said, "Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor.". Coincidentally, both pedos.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That sounds like you are channeling Tucker Carlson, referring to the Rittenhouse case. He said, "Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor.". Coincidentally, both pedos.

I was channeling evil, had no idea I had nailed it. Thank you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Probably because you misread what was being stated in Thermal's comment, and my reply.

Thermal was replying to someone who brought up the fact that in Florida if someone throws popcorn at you, you can then shoot them because you 'feared for your life'. Which is absolute ********. The man who did the shooting after suffering the viscous popcorn assault was acquitted because....Florida.

Maybe that helps. I wasn't, nor am I now, implying that either of the dead men in those two situations should be charged or tried. That would be stupid.

ETA: Though if the old man were still alive I wouldn't be against charging him with trespassing or some form of harassment, despite being punched in the face. In fact, had he lived I would bet that Pujols wouldn't have been charged with much at all. Maybe, MAYBE a misdemeanor.

 

[johnny karate]

@plague311:

You're not hearing me. What concerns me here is that posters are so entranced with the idea of a racist getting what's coming to him that they are glossing right over how horrific what Pujols did was. A little lip service about how "yeah, it was wrong" ain't really cutting it. Beating an old man into a grave is not a small thing.

As I've said, I think provocation should be taken farther, sometimes to the point of treating a provoked blow as self defense, or at least the second shot in a fight. I'm basically with Pujols here, except for the old man angle. That's crossing a behavioral line I'm not okay with.

Would you be okay with a 27 yr old man smashing and killing an old lady, for her rudeness? I got lines, man, and this crosses one.

Plenty of forum members dance on the graves of people who died in less ignominious circumstances than this unhinged virulent racist did.

Some members of this forum have yet to see the corpse of a black man they wouldn't piss on to tell you how terrible he was and how much he deserved to die.

But for some reason, you conveniently only play the role of morality police when it suits you.

This and the fact that you go out of your way to omit important details about Cook's role in escalating the situation that lead to his death makes your schtick come across as disingenuous.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, Thermal...get the context right. He called Pujols a name...TWICE. Then Pujols struck the 77 y/o in the head, which led to his death.

Plus, the victim was wearing tartan socks and pastel sweats. And some other important context stuff.

Only black guys illegally killed by the police deserve scrutiny of their behavior leading up to their deaths.

White racist pedophiles get a pass from Warp12.

 

[mgidm86]

@plague311:

You're not hearing me. What concerns me here is that posters are so entranced with the idea of a racist getting what's coming to him that they are glossing right over how horrific what Pujols did was. A little lip service about how "yeah, it was wrong" ain't really cutting it. Beating an old man into a grave is not a small thing.

As I've said, I think provocation should be taken farther, sometimes to the point of treating a provoked blow as self defense, or at least the second shot in a fight. I'm basically with Pujols here, except for the old man angle. That's crossing a behavioral line I'm not okay with.

Would you be okay with a 27 yr old man smashing and killing an old lady, for her rudeness? I got lines, man, and this crosses one.

Just wanna say I agree with what Thermal is saying. If that isn't clear enough, my position is no, this guy gets no credit from me - he started a physical altercation and it was not self defense. Period.

I agree that this single punch does demonstrate a greater potential for violence. How could it not? Most people do not do what he did, therefore yes, greater than average potential has has been established by his own act. WTF more do you need to see?

And I will repeat for the third time - no it is not legal to drag someone out of a business and /or kick their ass unless you are in fear for yours or others' safety and can clearly demonstrate that. The cops may look the other way and they may not, but it is absolutely illegal. It is called assault.

I am not making or giving emotional excuses over the fact that the man was a pedophile, or because the suspect is black. I don't care. I think others here are.

I do sympathize with the suspect and a lot of factors should be considered at sentencing, which they were. I think his sentence may have been light, but I could be convinced that it's fair. I didn't watch the trial so can't offer a real opinion on it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just wanna say I agree with what Thermal is saying. If that isn't clear enough, my position is no, this guy gets no credit from me - he started a physical altercation and it was not self defense. Period.

I agree that this single punch does demonstrate a greater potential for violence. How could it not? Most people do not do what he did, therefore yes, greater than average potential has has been established by his own act. WTF more do you need to see?

And I will repeat for the third time - no it is not legal to drag someone out of a business and /or kick their ass unless you are in fear for yours or others' safety and can clearly demonstrate that. The cops may look the other way and they may not, but it is absolutely illegal. It is called assault.

I am not making or giving emotional excuses over the fact that the man was a pedophile, or because the suspect is black. I don't care. I think others here are.

I do sympathize with the suspect and a lot of factors should be considered at sentencing, which they were. I think his sentence may have been light, but I could be convinced that it's fair. I didn't watch the trial so can't offer a real opinion on it.

Pretty much all of this.

 

[plague311]

Just wanna say I agree with what Thermal is saying. If that isn't clear enough, my position is no, this guy gets no credit from me - he started a physical altercation and it was not self defense. Period.

I agree that this single punch does demonstrate a greater potential for violence. How could it not? Most people do not do what he did, therefore yes, greater than average potential has has been established by his own act. WTF more do you need to see?

And I will repeat for the third time - no it is not legal to drag someone out of a business and /or kick their ass unless you are in fear for yours or others' safety and can clearly demonstrate that. The cops may look the other way and they may not, but it is absolutely illegal. It is called assault.

I am not making or giving emotional excuses over the fact that the man was a pedophile, or because the suspect is black. I don't care. I think others here are.

I do sympathize with the suspect and a lot of factors should be considered at sentencing, which they were. I think his sentence may have been light, but I could be convinced that it's fair. I didn't watch the trial so can't offer a real opinion on it.

Pretty much all of this.

LoL well I know I'm happy that you both have managed to agree with each other on issues no one is really arguing with.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I like cake.