ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
I don't know what to tell you, border turnarounds aren't deportations, and pretending that they are is lying.
Or are you saying you've blocked Obama?
Besides Obama deported more illegals for a fraction of the cost.
He didn't. He just lied about it.
"On some level" means exactly what it says on the tin, dude. Again I'm begging you to re-read before replying and apply some critical thinking skills.
"On some level" means to some degree, to a certain extent, or from a particular perspective, acknowledging something is partially true or valid without being entirely so, often used to qualify agreement or understanding.
Being "partially" shocked at someone for disagreeing with a claim, while not believing it yourself is downright schizophrenic.
I'm also not, and nowhere did, claim that we have indisputable proof that she was murdered
"This is so obviously a murder" means that it is, in fact, indisputable that she was murdered.
You seriously think the cop did nothing wrong?
Correct. I think avoiding this situation on his part would require either superhuman abilities, risking his own life in order to save the life of a suspect which already showed herself to be acting with malice, or luck, which was out of his control.
there has to be a higher standard for the people in masks with guns that have been trained than the mom in the car".
Do you believe this, yes or no?
I do believe it, and I think those higher standards were met in this case.
...the idea that this there can't be any ICE officer who went too far. There's not one fuckin guy who didn't follow the training that this guy can't suffer some consequences for killing a woman. That's the bare minimum
Do you believe this, yes or no?
You honestly can't tell what I'm going to say? The answer should be obvious, I don't believe "there can't be any particular officer that went too far", I believe, upon reviewing available evidence, that this particular officer didn't.
Please explain to me why you thought this is a good question to ask, or that defending my position would imply a non-zero chance of answering "yes".
The idea that there's just no accountability, you can't they can wear plain clothes or have a mask and they can kill people and then the vice president will say they have absolute immunity is not a reasonable path for for America.
Do you believe this is a reasonable thing for the VP to say?
Mostly, yeah.
Let's clear up some factual stuff first: there objectively is accountability - Rene's wife or the Dems can just take ICE to court. They weren't wearing plain clothes, and masks are irrelevant since she knew they were ICE when she got involved. To be clear, I consider these things negotiable, and I think it's fine if you want to advocate for them, but you don't get to act like anyone who disagrees is unresonable or immoral.
As for Vance, I think it's fine for him to say that, and in fact it's throwing the agent who obviously did nothing wrong under the bus, to appease a mob acting in bad faith, that would be unsustainable.
And then, as I'm making my way down the thread, it's incredibly revealing that so far no one has engaged with this quote by Trump at all, which is a fucking insane thing to say:
Because everyone knows that the specific content of what politicians say is useless. Just because they say something doesn't mean it's true, and just because they don't say it doesn't mean it isn't. After at least a century of the Constitution being pissed and shat on through actual government actions (most of which you fall under your "the system works, everything is fine" shtick), I'm not about the get my fainting couch over words.
I answered your questions now it's your turn. Contrast the ICE incident to the video I linker above. Contrast Good to Babnit, and explain to me why only Good warrants the amount of outrage you're showing.
I swear to god so many people have brainworms that any potential foreign intervention must be directly compared to the interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are other ways to do things than occupying and nation building.
It's not just Iraq and Afghanistan, it's also Syria and Libya (that I remember off the top of my head). Also I'd be more ok with your idea if anyone was punished for these blunders, and gave the current batch of pro-intervention people something to think about.
It crossed my mind, but it's been so long ago I hardly remembered anything about it. Completely forgot anyone got shot there, for example.
That seems to expand the word terrorist beyond all usefulness.
Yeah, hence the "non-central fallacy". I never said I liked it or that I agree with it.
The only groups in Europe that come to mind that are remotely comparable to what the anti-ICE people are doing, are the climate activists that glue themselves to highways. Most of everyone else files for a protest permit at the town hall.
Which is why the ICE death rate is critical to the argument - it shows that ICE are not detaining violent criminals in large numbers, unlike local police.
No it doesn't. If the entire police force were deployed as nothing but SWAT teams, their death rate would go down too. Further, arresting someone, even a normal person, is already a violent action on par with a bar fight, so excluding those in favor of "murder by a stranger" makes no sense.
That would be a good point, if that door / window / whatever was all that stood between the protestors and the lawmakers, but I was under the impression Congress was safely evacuated at that stage?
Yes, so, people may indeed be backing their tribe and justifying actions on that basis
Well again, should I take what he said seriously, or devolve into questioning his motives? (Which, in hindsight I guess I kinda did anyway, so feel free to spank me for that one).
presumably because she was trying to kill Ross
Sort of. As much as I hate the concept, it's just the "non-central fallacy". A terrorist is someone who uses violence for political ends, driving a car at someone is violent, and she did it at an anti-ICE protest, ergo: terrorist. Inaccurate and lame, especially since that a businessman like Trump probably has access to talented marketers that could come with a better term conveying the same message.
So, just to be clear, your mental model of the OP is that he literally believes it's legal to run over police officers?
My mental model is that he's just backing his tribe no matter what, and to that end he will say whatever. But if we take what he's saying seriously (as anything else would be uncharitable), that is a clear implication. One caveat I will add is that his claim seems to be conditioned on intentions, so if as long as they're not knowingly and purposefully trying to kill a police officer, driving at the would not be a crime.
is there an easy way to search for all post that include links?
Yup, the search engine goes over the "source code" of the posts, not the rendered text, so you can just search for "https://"
Do you think he's actually confused about the legality of hitting police officers with your car?
Yes, obviously. He's calling the police shooting at Good "murder", obviously that implies she should be able to allow to hit the cop.
People will give so much grief to FCFromSSC for pointing out we have completely different values that will tear our country/ies apart, and then post stuff like this...
I'd also say that if you want to have a productive conversation, you should seperate the topics of this incident. Are we litigating the facts? Cool, let's not focus on a propaganda rag's coverge of a single video, let's pull up all the videos, including the one's from the officer's perspective. Let's pull up analogous examples that ended badly for the police officer involved, and compare how far the ICE guy was from meeting the exact same end.
Are we litigating morality? Okay, maybe you can do a compare and contrast with Ashley Babbit, like we did in the last thread? Maybe you can take another look at that video from the previous paragraph and explain whether you that officer was wrong for shooting? If yes, you could then go on to explain why LEO's should be expected to let themselves be killed, regardless of how recklessly a suspect was acting. If not, you could explain how the two situations are different, and what makes the difference SO OBVIOUS to warrant a massive wall of text of moral castigation.
Are we litigating whether politicians lie at worst, or stretch the definitions to the bounds of tolerance in order to score political points? Well, that one is easy, the answer is "yes". Have you been living under a rock?
In any case throwing all these topics in a blender and acting indignant that anyone might disagree is not going to be very productive.
Are people really so wrapped up in the culture war that they have lost empathy for a dead mother has a child who's six years old and an orphan because she's on the 'other side'?
I have lots of empathy for her. She's a victim of an evil political movement that lied to her about her country's law enforcement, and taught her to act in an extremely dangerous and reckless way.
Again: none of this requires you to think Good's wife, for example (!), or nearby protestors, or Good, are virtuous, only to think that the cop did at least something wrong. Something is wrong, and it's the attitude here.
Yes, and the attitude here that is wrong is yours. The cop did not do anything wrong, or at the very least the argument that he didn't is perfectly defensible. Stop shouting people down for disagreeing.
I'm a "the system works" kind of guy. This is not working...
Consider me officially flipped. Everything is no longer fine; the system is breaking
I dunno, I never seen your "everything is fine" shtick as genuine, it always looked like a cudgel to beat populists with. Flipping now that it is your tribe that's upset with the authorities only serves to reinforce that impression.
But of course the homicide rate includes domestics, bar fights etc
This is an argument for ICE, not against. Most people don't have to detain people (many of whom are violent criminals) over the course of their day.
- Prev
- Next

As a big fan of technical correctness, I can only tip my hat to you, sir. However, that sentence doesn't read like he's expressing surprise at not being alone in the world, especially in the light of the rest of his post.
More options
Context Copy link