gabeygoat
Master Poster
I’ve spent much of the year in the hospital. I look fairly normal now, but if I was to spew racist stuff at someone, I’d be much safer punched in the face than my abdomen or crotch
Being a racist while having a soft skull
- Thread starter TurkeysGhost
- Start date
-
- Tags
- assault incidents mod box
I’ve spent much of the year in the hospital. I look fairly normal now, but if I was to spew racist stuff at someone, I’d be much safer punched in the face than my abdomen or crotch
We don't know what was said apart from what the puncher has claimed was said.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No.
The police and the prosecutors have accepted it as fact... that means the witnesses have told the police what was said, not just Pujols. They have made statements.
"According to police and prosecutors, the incident began when Cook, a regular customer at the restaurant on 410 S 50th St., began berating the staff over the service he was getting in the drive-through lane. After being told to leave several times, Cook parked and came inside. As he was entering, Pujols, the on-duty manager at the time, told one of his coworkers to call the police.
Once inside, Cook approached the counter and continued to argue with Pujols, who remained on the opposite side of the counter, separated by a waist-high swinging door, approximately six feet away from Cook. During the argument, Cook called Pujols the n-word."
The Police and prosecutors are saying this as a statement of fact
Last edited:
Where is that from?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I hate to embarrass you like this, but its from the link you posted in post #654
Didn't you read it all before you posted?
Given my spelling I learnt not to get embarrassed by much a long time ago.
All that is saying in the police report is that is what the puncher said the old dude said.
This is getting circular.
plague311
Great minds think...
I just wanted to address this aside from what we now know about the man.
If you spit on or slap me, you are getting punched in the mouth. Without discretion. 18 or 80, you're getting punched in the mouth. At that point, you know what you're doing, and you're making a decision to assault me physically. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to stuff like that, but there's no way you're spitting on or slapping me without physical reaction. Ever.
That being said, now that everything is out I'm shuffling my stance from "I'm not cheering he's dead" to "I'm pouring out some liquor this weekend for Pujols."
Last edited:
I don't think I'm a thug but when I am provoked I do feel a strong urge to get violent.
I'm not virulently racist and when I am provoked I never feel the slightest hint of a racial slur trying to roll off my tongue.
If wanting to hit when I'm angry, maybe culminating in one very public punch at some point, means I really am a thug despite my lack of actual generally violent history.... then throwing even one racial slur when angry really has got to mean someone really is full of some kind of racial animus.
I can accept people's opinion that you really, honestly don't snap and punch people if you aren't a violent thug, but if that's how you feel about it... then I don't see how you avoid also concluding that you really, honestly don't slur at people by accident if the word isn't in your commonly used vocabulary.
I'm not virulently racist and when I am provoked I never feel the slightest hint of a racial slur trying to roll off my tongue.
If wanting to hit when I'm angry, maybe culminating in one very public punch at some point, means I really am a thug despite my lack of actual generally violent history.... then throwing even one racial slur when angry really has got to mean someone really is full of some kind of racial animus.
I can accept people's opinion that you really, honestly don't snap and punch people if you aren't a violent thug, but if that's how you feel about it... then I don't see how you avoid also concluding that you really, honestly don't slur at people by accident if the word isn't in your commonly used vocabulary.
Thermal
August Member
Having a rough time parsing this puppy.
Is anyone saying you have to be a violent thug to hit someone? I'm sure not, and don't see anyone else doing so.
And why would a slur mean a word is part of your common vocabulary? Surely you know that if you want to hurt with words, you choose the words most likely to hurt. An American might direct the c-word at a woman when enraged, but otherwise never use it or even think it. Same with whore or others. The idea is to hurt as much as possible, not reveal your innermost thoughts.
Look at it like a punching scenario: I take it you don't punch people, right? Like, not ever? But you might as a one-off to inflict as much pain and humiliation as you could. That doesn't mean you are a closet proponent of battery. It means you used what hurt the most, not your preferred.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
To be fair, I think about half the forum has Skeptic Tank on ignore.
plague311
Great minds think...
Well, one big knock against Pujols is that he definitely can't say that Cook looked young for his age. This is the most recent and detailed breakdown of what a massive piece of **** this guy happens to be. I can't believe that he only served 3 years, and received just 5 for the things he did. Repeatedly raping and taking advantage of underage boys as young as 12 it would appear. I confirmed that against the FDLE site.
All that being said, he looked fragile as hell so Pujols had to know whatever blast he gave him was going to at least shut the lights out. I'll consider him hitting his head a happy accident. A feature, not a bug. Good riddance.
All that being said, he looked fragile as hell so Pujols had to know whatever blast he gave him was going to at least shut the lights out. I'll consider him hitting his head a happy accident. A feature, not a bug. Good riddance.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
One shotted a racist child molester/pornographer? Hell, the city should be throwing him a parade, not putting him in prison.
Now, now if we keep being mean to the racist we're going to give people the vapors which will force them to decide we have to have a VERY SERIOUS DISCUSSION about tolerance in society... that they magically and by pure coincidence didn't want to have when the racist was being racist or in the context of any other scenario.
Thermal
August Member
Some hypocritical fruit just hangs too low.
plague311
Great minds think...
For some. I don't find it hypocritical to be pleased that a known molester and pedophile is dead.
I don't think this changes the dynamic for me all that much. Pujols still shouldn't have hit him for what the man said to him. It still doesn't make it right....but I'm also not bothered that the man died. The world is a better place when pedophiles are dead, and as a father and grandfather, I'm extremely happy this guy is dead. The only thing worse than him is someone that does this to toddlers and infants. **** this guy. Pujols will assuredly get prison time, but I hope it goes fast, I hope the sentence is light, and I hope he's revered in prison for what he did.
The only thing that would make me change positions more is if Pujols knew this before it all happened. If that were the case, I might end up even more enthusiastic about his demise.
Thermal
August Member
Admittedly, I feel a whole lot less sympathy for him now. Someone with a past like that shouldn't be consuming resources like air that are put to better use. Ultimately though, it makes no difference in terms of Pujols attack. Unless Pujol actually knew who Cook was? Pretty likely, I would think, as Cooke was front page news down there, and people will say "you see that guy over there? Well, a few years ago..." for many moons.
It is kind of funny to see the same posters who blast the "lookit, he was no angel" argument used against Arbery and others embracing the same thinking here. I mean, is it fallacious or not? Or just when convenient?
Cullenz for example seemed to be saying that being someone who would throw a punch was enough to make the label 'thug' totally appropriate.
And no, I don't choose the most hurtful words when I am upset and cussing someone out. I barely choose words at all. It's just whatever comes out because of how upset I am. It's the same type of stuff I say when I shut my hand in a door, with a few minor exeptions, like I don't call a door 'mean' (but I do call it a bastard ************).
And no, I wouldn't punch someone in a way to try to inflict as much pain and humiliation as possible. I would punch someone in anger in whatever way I managed to get my hands up and connected.
Thermal
August Member
Ok, but "is" a thug, and "was" a thug are two different things. Essential character versus transient choice and all.
Guess I have a hard time picturing that. Losing control, I mean. I mean, wouldn't you gouge eyes and stuff, or say random grunts and howling if you actually lost control? Employing appropriate words and tactics suggest a hell of a lot more thought than loss of control.
Lots of people have a few settings in between 'I considered the most appropriate things to do to offend or harm this person whose actions I don't like, and then did them' and 'unhinged monkey ****-flinging.'
If I lose my temper my first level is unconsidered cussing-out (which does not bring with it any slurs for no other reason than that I don't instinctually apply them) and when I was more impulsive, ****** fist-slinging (which does not bring with it any eye-gouging, because I just.. don't gouge people's eyes?)
Eye-gouging and gibbering would probably only happen if soemthing was in the process of trying to literally kill me or something. It wouldn't be becuase I was angry, it'd be because I was trying not to get killed. In fact, for me, eye-gouging would have to be on purpose, a considered action meant to do the most damage I could do, because I would never try to gouge eyes just because I was mad. I just.. don't do that. It's not in my repertoire.
If I lose my temper my first level is unconsidered cussing-out (which does not bring with it any slurs for no other reason than that I don't instinctually apply them) and when I was more impulsive, ****** fist-slinging (which does not bring with it any eye-gouging, because I just.. don't gouge people's eyes?)
Eye-gouging and gibbering would probably only happen if soemthing was in the process of trying to literally kill me or something. It wouldn't be becuase I was angry, it'd be because I was trying not to get killed. In fact, for me, eye-gouging would have to be on purpose, a considered action meant to do the most damage I could do, because I would never try to gouge eyes just because I was mad. I just.. don't do that. It's not in my repertoire.
Last edited:
One of the many, many ways that modern discourse has been basically demolished by trolls is that we no longer have any level of discussion about what people should do. Everything is a "What can you make me do?" and "What do I have the right to do" discussion.
I hate bringing him up because he turned into/revealed himself to be such a giant insufferable prick, but Scott Adams once said:
"There's a gigantic gray area between good moral behavior and outright felonious activities. I call that the Weasel Zone and it's where most of life happens."
And he's right. That's where most of life happens and it's where almost none of life is discussed.
Last edited: