• 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

Emily's Cat said:
Just for consideration, plague, I note the racism, I decry the racism... but I *still* think that a person being subjected to solely *verbal* abuse should not respond with *physical* aggression. I hold that as a principle that supersedes race, ethnicity, sex, etc.

In my view, the employee was wrong to physically assault a verbally abusive patron... and that is regardless of the race or age of either of them.
Click to expand...

I think it's wrong to attend a white nationalist rally under any circumstances.

You disagree.

Does this make you a worse person than me?

Sometimes, instead of making broad generalizations about people based on a single moment in their life based on your personal judgement, it's helpful to allow for context and nuance.
 
johnny karate said:
The point is that there are people who would look at that as indicative of violent behavior and therefore consider you to be "more prone to violence than average".
Click to expand...

Great. Agreed. I am more prone to violence than average. And yet I cannot even imagine punching a senior citizen over anything he could call me, much less have done so. So then, by the reasoning you just laid out, Pujols would be far more violent than an above-average violent person.

You seriously don't get that you are arguing against your own logic here, do you?

Personal judgements have no bearing on determining Pujols proclivity for violence relative to the general population.

The question isn't relevant, because again, individual personal judgements don't tell us anything. We all understand that this is something you would never, ever do under any circumstances. You've made that abundantly clear. But it ultimately isn't very informative.

The claim was made that Pujols is "more prone to violence than average".

That's the claim that needs to be substantiated.
Click to expand...

Then have at it. Most of us here are applying the common reasonable person standard, much as a juror would use without a wealth of statistical data at their disposal.

The question is much simpler: what would an average reasonable person do upon being called a vile name?

What do you do? What have you done? What have you seen?

you project racist motivations on posters with abandon, so you can drop this calculating skeptic act, that you only whip out when convenient.

Warp says that Pujols was more violent than the average person. Ok. So how many 20-somethings do you know who punch senior citizens in the face? I can't think of any. So i'm asking others if the average 20-somethings they know do such things. Maybe it's more "average" than I thought.
 
Thermal said:
Great. Agreed. I am more prone to violence than average. And yet I cannot even imagine punching a senior citizen over anything he could call me, much less have done so. So then, by the reasoning you just laid out, Pujols would be far more violent than an above-average violent person.

You seriously don't get that you are arguing against your own logic here, do you?
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing with the logic being presented. I'm giving another example of how it could be applied.

Instead of trying to understand that, you seem to want to double-down to the point that you label yourself as a violent person.

Which is fine by me. I will note this admission for future use.


Then have at it. Most of us here are applying the common reasonable person standard, much as a juror would use without a wealth of statistical data at their disposal.

The question is much simpler: what would an average reasonable person do upon being called a vile name?

What do you do? What have you done? What have you seen?

you project racist motivations on posters with abandon, so you can drop this calculating skeptic act, that you only whip out when convenient.

Warp says that Pujols was more violent than the average person. Ok. So how many 20-somethings do you know who punch senior citizens in the face? I can't think of any. So i'm asking others if the average 20-somethings they know do such things. Maybe it's more "average" than I thought.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't need to substantiate a counterclaim. Warp12 needs to substantiate the original claim.
 
Thermal said:
(Pssst...he didn't say he was a convicted criminal. He said he was arrested. Many people who get arrested are not convicted. I also fall in that group, and repeatedly)
Click to expand...

(Pssst... yes he did):
Warp12 said:
But, I've never been arrested for a violent crime, never convicted of anything besides a misdemeanor offense, and certainly I have not killed anyone via violence or otherwise. So, I am not sure why this matters?
Click to expand...


Your tracking record for missing obvious details remains unblemished.
 
johnny karate said:
I'm not agreeing with the logic being presented. I'm giving another example of how it could be applied.

Instead of trying to understand that, you seem to want to double-down to the point that you label yourself as a violent person.

Which is fine by me. I will note this admission for future use.
Click to expand...

Yet again, you tell an absolute, 100% lie. I didn't say I was a violent person. I said I was more prone to violence than average, which I would agree to.

I'll get back to you when you are able to make a single post without containing a blatant lie.
 
Thermal said:
Yet again, you tell an absolute, 100% lie. I didn't say I was a violent person. I said I was more prone to violence than average, which I would agree to.

I'll get back to you when you are able to make a single post without containing a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

How else would you define a violent person other than someone more prone to violence than most people?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
How else would define a violent person other than someone more prone to violence than most people?
Click to expand...

We really need to drag the use of adjectives down to a grade-school level for you? Fine.

The average height for an American male is 5'9". If one is 5' 91/2", he is taller than average. He is not a "tall man" by any stretch.

Seriously, this is childish. I'm off to chat with grown-ups for a bit.
 
Thermal said:
We really need to drag the use of adjectives down to a grade-school level for you? Fine.

The average height for an American male is 5'9". If one is 5' 91/2", he is taller than average. He is not a "tall man" by any stretch.

Seriously, this is childish. I'm off to chat with grown-ups for a bit.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I really don't like getting into these petty semantic debates, but...
having a relatively great height; of more than average stature
Click to expand...


These are just alley-oops at this point. It's not even challenging.
 
johnny karate said:
I think it's wrong to attend a white nationalist rally under any circumstances.

You disagree.

Does this make you a worse person than me?

Sometimes, instead of making broad generalizations about people based on a single moment in their life based on your personal judgement, it's helpful to allow for context and nuance.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a blatant mischaracterization of my post, which demonstrates your inability to engage with integrity.

Emily's Cat said:
That said, if for some unfathomable reason, a pile of racist bigots were to organize a rally for something that I truly held dear and had great devotion to, I'm not going to let their idiocy stop me from taking a stand.
Click to expand...

If a pile of racist bigots were to organize a rally to protest the Russian Occupation of Ukraine... in your view that means that nobody is allowed to attend that protest in support of Ukraine, because now supporting Ukraine means they're a white supremacists.

Go take an introduction to critical thinking class.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Just for consideration, plague, I note the racism, I decry the racism... but I *still* think that a person being subjected to solely *verbal* abuse should not respond with *physical* aggression. I hold that as a principle that supersedes race, ethnicity, sex, etc.
Click to expand...

No **** :rolleyes: So you're the same as literally every other person in this thread?

Emily's Cat said:
JustIn my view, the employee was wrong to physically assault a verbally abusive patron... and that is regardless of the race or age of either of them.
Click to expand...

Again, no ****. That's what everyone thinks. I've asked, more than once, to find someone that is actually saying Pujol's actions were the right ones. So far, ******* crickets. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.

No one is saying he should have punched and killed the old racist bastard. Just not a lot of people are mad at it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Wow, that's a blatant mischaracterization of my post, which demonstrates your inability to engage with integrity.



If a pile of racist bigots were to organize a rally to protest the Russian Occupation of Ukraine... in your view that means that nobody is allowed to attend that protest in support of Ukraine, because now supporting Ukraine means they're a white supremacists.

Go take an introduction to critical thinking class.
Click to expand...

"Context and nuance for me, but not for thee".
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is an abjectly ridiculous statement.

I am more prone to high cholesterol than most people, due to a family history of it. I don't, however, actually have high cholesterol.
Click to expand...

You're right. What you said is an abjectly ridiculous statement.
 
You hope that if you demonstrate a point clearly enough, people will pick up on it without you having to hold their hand in explaining it to them.

And yet here we are.

This is what we've learned about the "I would never do that!" moral high-horsers in this thread:

One is a convicted criminal.

One engages in violent activity as a hobby.

One would willingly attend a white nationalist rally.

I'm sure each of them would protest (and have) at having these contextless facts used against them to denigrate their moral character, and yet they all feel perfectly comfortable doing the same to someone else.

None of us were there when Pujols punched Cook. We don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the incident, only scant details we've seen in the media.

And we don't know anything about what kind of person Pujols is, only that he lost his cool in one fateful moment. A moment that he is now paying for. In a way, I might add, deemed by the criminal justice system as being fairly sympathetic toward him.

So I simply do not see the utility in engaging in this moral posturing circle-jerk in which we are regaled with fanciful tales about what certain people would or wouldn't do if it were them.

It comes across as disingenuous and stinks of an underlying agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom