• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

Warp12 said:
As I recall, he posted links to the Daunte Wright case, where I basically said he was a scumbag and his own actions ultimately led to his death. I stand by that 100%.

What he didn't link, was that I fully supported the prosecution of the cop involved, and I had no problem with the guilty verdict that was handed down.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13690903&postcount=215

What I see here, is that any time skin color can be made a factor, some do. Then, those who reject such notions are promptly labeled "racist". In this case, and plenty of others.

When minorities are involved, their apologists literally sprint from out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, you took every opportunity to celebrate the death of black man illegally killed by the police.

Then you come into this thread and chastise people for celebrating or mocking the death of a racist pedophile.

And much like you, those people provided caveats that stated they didn't condone Pujols actions, and made a very clear distinction between that and thinking that a dead racist pedophile isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Apply your standards consistently, or don't bother with them at all.
 
Thermal said:
plague. Here you go bro. Here's a recent comment directed to me from another poster:



You might note that said poster pulls quotes from other posters, taking a position I do not hold, and throws them at me quite openly stating that "this is why" he does not take my posts seriously.

Think about that a moment. Not my posts. Never my position, on any thread ever. But that is a character slam against me personally.

You do this too, having claimed in this thread that I support the killing of black men, which was a blatant lie I called you out on and you refused to address.
Click to expand...

If you're going to play morality police, you set yourself up for this.

I'll tell you what I told Warp12: Apply your standards consistently, or don't bother with them at all.

Personally, I prefer the latter. The incessant high-horse moralizing is painfully tedious.
 
johnny karate said:
Apply your standards consistently, or don't bother with them at all.
Click to expand...

I do apply my standards equally. You just can't see that because race is clouding your view. The fact that you are making comparisons with entirely different cases and circumstances of crime does not help, either.

You are abusing the racism card.
 
johnny karate said:
If you're going to play morality police, you set yourself up for this.

I'll tell you what I told Warp12: Apply your standards consistently, or don't bother with them at all.

Personally, I prefer the latter. The incessant high-horse moralizing is painfully tedious.
Click to expand...

As was just pointed out slowly and with painful clarity, I apply moral reasoning to any morally dubious thread discussion. Morally trashed the living **** out of Rittenhouse, most recently. Discussion of the often murky ethical angles are interesting to some. Not you, of course.
 
Warp12 said:
I do apply my standards equally. You just can't see that because race is clouding your view. The fact that you are making comparisons with entirely different cases and circumstances of crime does not help, either.

You are abusing the racism card.
Click to expand...

The post you're responding to didn't mention race, but rather the fact that you provided caveats when you celebrated the death of a black man illegally killed by the police.

Similar caveats have been provided by those who celebrated the death of a racist pedophile.

If it's good enough for you, it should be good enough for them.

If not, then you're not applying your standards consistently.
 
Thermal said:
As was just pointed out slowly and with painful clarity, I apply moral reasoning to any morally dubious thread discussion. Morally trashed the living **** out of Rittenhouse, most recently. Discussion of the often murky ethical angles are interesting to some. Not you, of course.
Click to expand...

No, that can be interesting.

What's not interesting is belligerent grandstanding that accuses other people of moral failings because they don't express the same level of outrage as you.
 
johnny karate said:
No, that can be interesting.

What's not interesting is belligerent grandstanding that accuses other people of moral failings because they don't express the same level of outrage as you.
Click to expand...

No. And I mean the following constructively and sincerely, not combatively. Please read it in that spirit because I know it will sound like picking a fight.

In many of these threads, there is some kind of unspoken "sides" picked out, usually something like "pro-black guy" and "anti- black guy". The thing is, those sides are artificial. ITT, my interest is in the moral conflict between open provocation and attacking a more or less helpless opponent. Part of me wants to excuse anyone who is functionally not a threat, and part wants to say "then don't use fighting words if you can't fight it out". The relative skin colors don't interest me, except to note that an exceptionally provoking slur was used against Pujols, which may not have an equally inflammatory counterpart to a white boy (I can't think of anything, anyway). I'm really not clear on how it weighs out.

Yet I get an immediate pushback that I only examine a black man's motives, never a cracker's. An entirely untrue claim, as I can point out thread after thread, with receipts, as you say. So we tumble down these dumbass personalized derails.

Can you see how that might be aggravating, when done over and over?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
No. And I mean the following constructively and sincerely, not combatively. Please read it in that spirit because I know it will sound like picking a fight.

In many of these threads, there is some kind of unspoken "sides" picked out, usually something like "pro-black guy" and "anti- black guy". The thing is, those sides are artificial. ITT, my interest is in the moral conflict between open provocation and attacking a more or less helpless opponent. Part of me wants to excuse anyone who is functionally not a threat, and part wants to say "then don't use fighting words if you can't fight it out". The relative skin colors don't interest me, except to note that an exceptionally provoking slur was used against Pujols, which may not have an equally inflammatory counterpart to a white boy (I can't think of anything, anyway). I'm really not clear on how it weighs out.

Yet I get an immediate pushback that I only examine a black man's motives, never a cracker's. An entirely untrue claim, as I can point out thread after thread, with receipts, as you say. So we tumble down these dumbass personalized derails.

Can you see how that might be aggravating, when done over and over?
Click to expand...

I absolutely accept this in the spirit in which it was intended.

And yes, I appreciate the aggravation you experience in being accused of something unfair. By that same token, I'm sure there are other people in this thread who feel unfairly accused by you, so I hope you can appreciate the aggravation that they might feel.

So what do you say we leave it here: Pujols was wrong to punch Cook. But considering that Cook was a degenerate piece of garbage, his subsequent death isn't particularly tragic.

Fair enough?
 
johnny karate said:
I absolutely accept this in the spirit in which it was intended.

And yes, I appreciate the aggravation you experience in being accused of something unfair. By that same token, I'm sure there are other people in this thread who feel unfairly accused by you, so I hope you can appreciate the aggravation that they might feel.

So what do you say we leave it here: Pujols was wrong to punch Cook. But considering that Cook was a degenerate piece of garbage, his subsequent death isn't particularly tragic.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Agreed, and fair enough. I'll suss out which moral imperative generally outweighs the other on my own. Ultimately, Pujols is paying his societal debt, and Tampa area children are perhaps a bit safer.
 
theprestige said:
You're remonstrating with an audience that endorses political violence, on a forum that has strict rules against advocating illegal acts, but does not see fit to sanction advocating political violence, even though it's assault and illegal pretty much everywhere. Some are more equal than others and your cause is doomed.
Click to expand...

Do we have a lot of January 6 supporters here that I’m not aware of? Jeez. Must be in the Amanda Knox thread.
 
johnny karate said:
The post you're responding to didn't mention race, but rather the fact that you provided caveats when you celebrated the death of a black man illegally killed by the police.
Click to expand...

Didn't mention race? Read the above, lol. You have been harping on race, for pages now. That is, when you weren't inexplicably (?) claiming that Pujols didn't behave in a more violent manner than the average person would.

This pedo, Rosenbaum, Wright, Floyd...all scumbags who earned their fates. What the courts couldn't do, karma did. That doesn't mean that those accused of wrongdoing should not be brought to trial in each case. Which I fully support.

So, you can pretty much can your racism angle, with me.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Didn't mention race? Read the above, lol. You have been harping on race, for pages now. That is, when you weren't inexplicably (?) claiming that Pujols didn't behave in a more violent manner than the average person would.

This pedo, Rosenbaum, Wright, Floyd...all scumbags who earned their fates. What the courts couldn't do, karma did. That doesn't mean that those accused of wrongdoing should not be brought to trial in each case. Which I fully support.

So, you can pretty much can your racism angle, with me.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that calling George Floyd, a black man and murder victim, a “scumbag who earned [his] fate” is doing much to convince people that you’re not racist.

And it certainly doesn’t make your performative moral posturing in this thread any more believable.
 
johnny karate said:
I’m not sure that calling George Floyd, a black man and murder victim, a “scumbag who earned [his] fate” is doing much to convince people that you’re not racist.
Click to expand...

There is no reason that I have to convince anyone that I'm not a racist, because there is no evidence to support such a thing. Yet, you keep implying it at every opportunity. Race seems to be a focal point for you; me, not so much.

This pedo and Rosenbaum are white. I feel the same way about their fate as I do about Floyd's and Wright's. It isn't a matter of the color of their skin, but their actions. Karma did the heavy lifting in all of these cases. All of those accused of wrongdoing in their deaths have stood trial. As it should be.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
There is no reason that I have to convince anyone that I'm not a racist, because there is no evidence to support such a thing. Yet, you keep implying it at every opportunity. Race seems to be a focal point for you; me, not so much.

This pedo and Rosenbaum are white. I feel the same way about their fate as I do about Floyd's and Wright's. It isn't a matter of the color of their skin, but their actions. Karma did the heavy lifting in all of these cases. All of those accused of wrongdoing in their deaths have stood trial. As it should be.
Click to expand...

You're doubling down on calling a murder victim a "scumbag who earned his fate" and for some reason still expect anyone to believe your high-horse theatrics in this thread to be connected to anything resembling principle.
 
Warp12 said:
I feel the same way about their fate as I do about Floyd's and Wright's. It isn't a matter of the color of their skin, but their actions.
Click to expand...

Damn you George Floyd, you really deserved to die because you were a dirty drug addict!!!!

Who did not deserve to die (according to Warp12) was the old racist who got punched and then broke his head on the floor, this guy, of course DID NOT have it coming for him...no Karma at all, no earned fate :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
EaglePuncher said:
Who did not deserve to die (according to Warp12) was the old racist who got punched and then broke his head on the floor, this guy, of course DID NOT have it coming for him...no Karma at all, no earned fate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As I have suggested before, you might want to read more. This was posted just several posts above:

Warp12 said:
This pedo, Rosenbaum, Wright, Floyd...all scumbags who earned their fates. What the courts couldn't do, karma did. That doesn't mean that those accused of wrongdoing should not be brought to trial in each case. Which I fully support.
Click to expand...

As you can see, your point is invalid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom