• 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

JoeMorgue said:
Because this isn't a game where the losing side gets a handicap to keep the score being a blowout.

"Plenty of people are telling the racists he is racist, I'll assume the role of 'Making sure people are too mean to the racist'" isn't how reality works.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. \

So from now on any 77 year old is fair game to punching the head, provided the puncher is black and says they were called names,
 
cullennz said:
Fair enough. \

So from now on any 77 year old is fair game to punching the head, provided the puncher is black and says they were called names,
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is definitely what we have all argued for. Amazing detective work, cullennz. It's really good that nobody has ever posted anything to the effect that this wasn't true at all. You're in the clear.
 
Belz... said:
Absolutely. That is definitely what we have all argued for. Amazing detective work, cullennz. It's really good that nobody has ever posted anything to the effect that this wasn't true at all. You're in the clear.
Click to expand...

Unless i missed it, which is not impossible, no one has.

We have a dude who says he was called names hitting a 50 year older dude in the head, because he allegedly called him names. Feel free to post a link showing otherwise.
 
cullennz said:
Which in most cases can be quite helpful.

In this one not so much.

Young fit dude hits 50 years older dude in the head for calling him alleged names with no evidence apart from punchers word is basically it.
Some people think it's warranted for some reason.

Personally find it odd, but not American, so don't get the seemingly instant aggro some of them seem to think breaks some kind of code or something, if it is certain words which apparently justify it.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence for it, so drop this ********. It's been repeated ad nauseum. The police have accepted it as fact. The DA has put it in the charging papers, and I'm fairly sure one of the linked articles shows there were witnesses to it. If you want to keep implying this nonsensical claim then go right ahead, but it absolutely destroys any credibility you've had.

Also, to add to the list of "******** cullennz is making up for some reason", only an individual person has said it's justified here. No one, I repeat NO ONE else has said that Pujols was justified and shouldn't face any charges.

Why are you continuing to spout these ******** talking points? What are you possibly gaining from saying knowingly false information? How would you like these statements taken by other people when everyone knows you're lying?
 
plague311 said:
Plenty of evidence for it, so drop this ********. It's been repeated ad nauseum. The police have accepted it as fact. The DA has put it in the charging papers, and I'm fairly sure one of the linked articles shows there were witnesses to it. If you want to keep implying this nonsensical claim then go right ahead, but it absolutely destroys any credibility you've had.

Also, to add to the list of "******** cullennz is making up for some reason", only an individual person has said it's justified here. No one, I repeat NO ONE else has said that Pujols was justified and shouldn't face any charges.

Why are you continuing to spout these ******** talking points? What are you possibly gaining from saying knowingly false information? How would you like these statements taken by other people when everyone knows you're lying?
Click to expand...

There isn't plenty of evidence.

There is an official police report which has the perpetrators statements in it.
 
cullennz said:
Not at all.

But earlier in the thread people seemed to imply that if the bloke had called him the "N" word it would be some kind of justification.
Click to expand...

Several have suggested that. I disagree with that entire concept though, which is a rather large part of this discussion - whether or not really, really mean words should be seen to justify physical violence in response.

So unless you personally hold the view that the old person using the n-word would justify Pujols punching him, then I don't see why you'd bother arguing the accuracy of that allegation.

I mean, aside from the fact that every single one of us on this site is fundamentally disposed to argue at every opportunity ;)
 
Belz... said:
Sounds like at this point nothing could shake you from your "thug" narrative.
Click to expand...

I have already said I should have called the act of violence thuggish and not the bloke.

And yes there is. As I said

Given the punchers age, if it turns out he, a brother of his, or a best mate of his was a victim of the walking piece of scum dead dude, then I would lose the thug thing.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Several have suggested that. I disagree with that entire concept though, which is a rather large part of this discussion - whether or not really, really mean words should be seen to justify physical violence in response.

So unless you personally hold the view that the old person using the n-word would justify Pujols punching him, then I don't see why you'd bother arguing the accuracy of that allegation.

I mean, aside from the fact that every single one of us on this site is fundamentally disposed to argue at every opportunity ;)
Click to expand...

Lol

Fair point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom