(02-14-2020 05:30 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Where did I say you said one was okay? I'm very serious. You're accusing me of reading something in, and it's you who seems to be doing so.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16672368

Quote:You keep seemimgly trying to defend why one action is okay and the other isn't. If it didn't happen, then it's not part of the conversation. If it did, then it's wrong. PETA members certainly have literally assaulted people wearing fur etc.

See the text above.

Words like 'seemingly' and 'if' have meaning. Yes, I think that you're going this way... and you've complained about me getting this impression, but done nothing to refute it other than say that you didn't literally say that. I klnow you didn't... if you had, I wouldn't use words like seemingly and if.

Quote:I've tried to explain why I view them as different enough to draw a distinction already, and I'll try again.

With CFA, people were protesting the specific company, and people can find alternatives to what that company provides in the market place. For abortions, people are not protesting a specific company with the "abortion industry," but rather the industry itself. There are no alternatives open in the marketplace for someone to go to, that the protesters would be happy with the customer using.

Because there is an alternative available for CFA (other places sell chicken sandwiches and the protesters would be fine with that), it makes sense to me to view this as a free market in action. Due to the lack of alternative for abortions, I would categorize it differently - which isn't saying that it isn't OK.

I'm speaking strictly of peaceful protests, and once you start crossing the line of be verbally/physically abusive, you cross the line for either issue. But I don't think peacefully protesting near/at a business is a denial of service.

I do think we're pretty much on the same page.

I completely understood this the first time you said it... I just disagree.

So whom is PETA protesting when they throw paint on people wearing fur? Whom can you buy animal skin from that they'd be okay with?

Adoption isn't an alternative to an abortion? It seems very much specifically the option that abortion protesters support... and just as you can get a different chicken sandwich, you can get a different medical procedure.

and yes, 'murder' to some is more important than being able to get their chicken sandwich of choice.

You're drawing distinctions that don't matter to those engaging in these protests. They (may) matter to YOU because you seem to support one (protesting a business) and not the other (protesting an industry, paraphrasing your words) ; but if you put yourself in the position of someone who doesn't support either, you will be able to justify your position, just as I have here. That's not my position above, but it's the position of those who think they're 'okay' in aggressively protesting (to the point of intimidation if not criminality) these events.

Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.

This reminds me of a discussion I was in a while ago regarding Colin Kaepernick's National Anthem protests. The view which everyone was expected to agree with is that his protests are good, and opposition to them is bad because it necessarily means opposition to protecting people from police brutality. I pointed out that one can reasonably believe that the National Anthem should never be used to call attention to one's pet cause, regardless of the merits of that cause; and that to someone who holds such a belief, the argument that "but this particular cause is a really good one" does not carry much weight. For this I was called sexist, racist, gas-lighting, and a few other things. I'm sure they would have thrown in "OK boomer" if it had been a thing at the time (even though most of the participants were older than me).

I made clear throughout that I was not arguing for or against Kaepernick's method of protest OR his underlying cause; I was simply pointing out that it is possible to have a completely content-neutral opposition to the method without opposing the underlying cause, and that responding to such opposition by re-iterating the underlying cause doesn't really work. To this day I don't know why this point was so hard to understand, or why stating it was considered so irredeemably offensive. But such are the times we live in.

To her credit, one individual who disagreed with me (and whom I had never met) took the time to talk with me by phone, and soon realized that we both support free speech and oppose police brutality. Since then we have seen each other at various professional events on quite friendly terms. So all in all, the end result was positive: without the disagreement we would not have had the phone call; and without the phone call, we might not have gotten to know each other. Quite a different experience from the way some others have acted in similar circumstances.

When Kaep originally sat, it had zero to do with police brutality. After all, who is
in favor of police brutality? Not me. But I don't think the US is an oppressive country. PB became a handy excuse for others to join. But Kaep said he sat because he could not honor the flag of an oppressive country.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...nal-anthem

(02-14-2020 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it isn't about getting a different medical procedure, it's about not getting one. With CFA protests, people are saying don't eat here, not don't eat any products that CFA and any of its competitors make.

Right here, you have made a differentiation that distinguishes one form of protest from another.

I am not 100% certain because you haven't said so, despite me asking numerous times... but by making this distinction, you ABSOLUTELY seem to be saying that 'what you said about CFA' doesn't apply here because it is different.

So you keep saying you're not saying it's okay, but you keep saying that while one is wrong, the other is 'different.'

Quote:Ham, using the word "seem" is not a magical get out of jail free card to try and pin a belief on them. Again, I do not SEEM to be against the act of protesting abortion - I simply commented that it was in a different category from the CFA protesters. If anti-abortion advocates and PETA supporters want to protest peacefully and not hurl abusive language and paint at people, I support that right in the same way that I support CFA protestors to do the exact same thing.

I don't think CFA protesters who intimidated anyone were OK, and I have not said that I supported them. I've not SEEMED to support that, either.

FIne.... this is the FIRST time you've said you support peaceful abortion protests.

And yes, by putting it in a different category, you're SEEMING to support a different treatment for it. That seems self-evident as a reasonable, though certainly not absolute consequence.

As I said, peaceful abortion protesters are protesting a business that they disagree with... whether or not there are alternatives was immaterial to the CFA protest.

[qupote] Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.
[/quote]

And I get what you're saying above, but I really don't understand how it is being applied to this conversation.
[/quote]

We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest. The idea is that certain forms of protest (ones that try and shame an individual) shouldn't be acceptable because they are not the free market at work as someone said earlier, but tantamount to bullying. WHY someone is protesting or if there are alternatives to the thing being protested shouldn't make any difference to what is and is not acceptable. If we say, well, this is different, then it implies that some otherwise unacceptable actions would thus be acceptable... and I disagree with that (and you seem to as well, but this wasn't clear earlier)

(02-15-2020 07:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But it isn't about getting a different medical procedure, it's about not getting one. With CFA protests, people are saying don't eat here, not don't eat any products that CFA and any of its competitors make.

Right here, you have made a differentiation that distinguishes one form of protest from another.

I am not 100% certain because you haven't said so, despite me asking numerous times... but by making this distinction, you ABSOLUTELY seem to be saying that 'what you said about CFA' doesn't apply here because it is different.

So you keep saying you're not saying it's okay, but you keep saying that while one is wrong, the other is 'different.'

Quote:Ham, using the word "seem" is not a magical get out of jail free card to try and pin a belief on them. Again, I do not SEEM to be against the act of protesting abortion - I simply commented that it was in a different category from the CFA protesters. If anti-abortion advocates and PETA supporters want to protest peacefully and not hurl abusive language and paint at people, I support that right in the same way that I support CFA protestors to do the exact same thing.

I don't think CFA protesters who intimidated anyone were OK, and I have not said that I supported them. I've not SEEMED to support that, either.

FIne.... this is the FIRST time you've said you support peaceful abortion protests.

And yes, by putting it in a different category, you're SEEMING to support a different treatment for it. That seems self-evident as a reasonable, though certainly not absolute consequence.

As I said, peaceful abortion protesters are protesting a business that they disagree with... whether or not there are alternatives was immaterial to the CFA protest.

[qupote] Yes, I think by positions we're not far apart... but I think you're missing the perspective from 'the other side'. Trust me that in your life, you will eventually find yourself on the wrong side of arguments that you once aggressively supported. This probably isn't it, but it will be because you didn't imagine that there would be a time when people thought very differently from how they do now. This is where the 'ok boomer' comment and attitude comes from. Many these days seem to be unconcerned with the idea that some day, they will be the 'out of touch' generation to a new group of priorities... and that laws will and must apply equally to everyone.

And I get what you're saying above, but I really don't understand how it is being applied to this conversation.
[/quote]

We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest. The idea is that certain forms of protest (ones that try and shame an individual) shouldn't be acceptable because they are not the free market at work as someone said earlier, but tantamount to bullying. WHY someone is protesting or if there are alternatives to the thing being protested shouldn't make any difference to what is and is not acceptable. If we say, well, this is different, then it implies that some otherwise unacceptable actions would thus be acceptable... and I disagree with that (and you seem to as well, but this wasn't clear earlier)
[/quote]

Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest. I simply indicated I felt one type could be considered the free market in action, while the other wasn’t. You jumped to the conclusion that me feeling like one was not the free market in action meant that it was unacceptable - I never said that or implied it.

Something being different does not at all imply it is or isn’t acceptable. It just means that it’s different, and I never once even came close to implying that different = unacceptable.

You projected how you thought I would feel onto me, and then would not admit that for a long time. Kind of a pain in the butt to have this argument. This started from what I would consider a rather technical and inconsequential categorization on my part (free market vs not free market protests), but turned into you trying to tell me I was against the act of peaceful abortion protests. I may not agree with what the protests are about, but if they’re peaceful, they’re A-OK in my book.

(02-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 06:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As I told Tanq, we’ve been down this road before, and it’s pretty darn pointless to do it again.

Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

Bingo. Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head!

Thank you for elucidating fully the scope of your ignorance.

lad, first, I will absolutely acknowledge the bluntness of my comment. Given that, I think it engenders some explanation. I would like to do this by terms of a question or two directed at you, and hopefully this will outline the background of my statement.

Let me take my quote above, the one you said 'You've hit the nail on the head' to.

Let me change just a couple of words, and I know I will get the opposite result from you. From that, we can delineate why I stated what I stated.

Please, no changing of language, or background explanation. My point is very directed and I would prefer to not sidetrack.

Here is the altered statement with redline:

If you happen to go to There is a group event Baptist church ice cream social, and at that ice cream social someone is murdered. at that event, then anyone and everyone that attended or is connected to that ice cream social should be with the event is culpable in that murder.

Here is the final statement:

There is a Baptist church ice cream social, and at that ice cream social someone is murdered. Anyone and everyone that attended or is connected to that ice cream social should be culpable in that murder.

Hopefully we all agree that that should not be the case. Would I be correct that you do not agree with that statement?

(02-16-2020 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dodge. Have to maintain that double standard.

It appears that you are right. There are NOT good people on both sides. In fact, there is nobody but shitbags on both sides. No good people on either side.

If you happen to go to a group event, and someone is murdered at that event, then anyone and everyone connected with the event is culpable.

Lad-world ciphering.

Bingo. Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head!

Thank you for elucidating fully the scope of your ignorance.

lad, first, I will absolutely acknowledge the bluntness of my comment. Given that, I think it engenders some explanation. I would like to do this by terms of a question or two directed at you, and hopefully this will outline the background of my statement.

Let me take my quote above, the one you said 'You've hit the nail on the head' to.

Let me change just a couple of words, and I know I will get the opposite result from you. From that, we can delineate why I stated what I stated.

Please, no changing of language, or background explanation. My point is very directed and I would prefer to not sidetrack.

Here is the altered statement with redline:

If you happen to go to There is a group event Baptist church ice cream social, and at that ice cream social someone is murdered. at that event, then anyone and everyone that attended or is connected to that ice cream social should be with the event is culpable in that murder.

Here is the final statement:

There is a Baptist church ice cream social, and at that ice cream social someone is murdered. Anyone and everyone that attended or is connected to that ice cream social should be culpable in that murder.

Hopefully we all agree that that should not be the case. Would I be correct that you do not agree with that statement?

I would add after the word “murdered” “in a dispute over the teachings of the Bible”, to get the flavor of a dispute on policy.

Fair enough, in fact lets make the point of the attendance the reason why the murder took place.

Here is the final statement:

There is a Baptist church ministry conference, and at that conference someone is murdered over a dispute on the meaning and requirement of baptism. Anyone and everyone that attended or is connected to that religious conference should be culpable in that murder.

Hopefully we all agree that that should not be the case. Would I be correct that you do not agree with that statement?

(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.

Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?

Last I checked, we were still a free country.

(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.

Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?

Last I checked, we were still a free country.

Lol, what? Are you really butting in with that baseless accusation? Honestly, what was going through your head when you felt the need to take the effort and respond?

Maybe stay informed on the conversation before butting in.

It started with a conversation about following one's conscience, following the Romney vote, and how that compared to CFA. I answered OO's question by explaining why I felt Romney was different than CFA. Ham and I then started a back and forth when he brought up picketing abortion clinics in relation to CFA. From there, we traveled down a fairly esoteric rabbit hole about protests that would or wouldn't be considered free-market, and there is obviously some misunderstanding on both sides.

Never once did I say I was in charge of the conversation, but as I just wrote, there's obviously been some misunderstandings between Ham and I, if he felt we were talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest and I didn't...

(02-16-2020 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.

Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.

Lol, what? Are you really butting in with that baseless accusation? Honestly, what was going through your head when you felt the need to take the effort and respond?
Maybe stay informed on the conversation before butting in.
It started with a conversation about following one's conscience, following the Romney vote, and how that compared to CFA. I answered OO's question by explaining why I felt Romney was different than CFA. Ham and I then started a back and forth when he brought up picketing abortion clinics in relation to CFA. From there, we traveled down a fairly esoteric rabbit hole about protests that would or wouldn't be considered free-market, and there is obviously some misunderstanding on both sides.
Never once did I say I was in charge of the conversation, but as I just wrote, there's obviously been some misunderstandings between Ham and I, if he felt we were talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest and I didn't...

"Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about..." pretty much says, "Ham, I'm in charge here, STFU." If you think you can differentiate the two, take your best shot.

(02-16-2020 02:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.

Who died and left you in charge of what is discussed on here?
Last I checked, we were still a free country.

Lol, what? Are you really butting in with that baseless accusation? Honestly, what was going through your head when you felt the need to take the effort and respond?
Maybe stay informed on the conversation before butting in.
It started with a conversation about following one's conscience, following the Romney vote, and how that compared to CFA. I answered OO's question by explaining why I felt Romney was different than CFA. Ham and I then started a back and forth when he brought up picketing abortion clinics in relation to CFA. From there, we traveled down a fairly esoteric rabbit hole about protests that would or wouldn't be considered free-market, and there is obviously some misunderstanding on both sides.
Never once did I say I was in charge of the conversation, but as I just wrote, there's obviously been some misunderstandings between Ham and I, if he felt we were talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest and I didn't...

"Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about..." pretty much says, "Ham, I'm in charge here, STFU." If you think you can differentiate the two, take your best shot.

Why not let Ham tell us what he thinks? Or would you prefer to be the arbiter of conversations, because it seems like you're trying your best to do that. Maybe that's why you took that comment that way...

Ham, in a direct response to me said "We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest." The "we're" was directed at me and him, as far as I could tell (especially since we had gone back and forth about 10 times).

So my intent was to make sure Ham knew that I had not started, and was not trying to talk about that topic, even though he thought we were. As I said, there was some obvious confusion between the two of us, if we couldn't agree about what we were talking about.

Does this explanation meet the Conversation Arbiter's standard?

(02-16-2020 02:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why not let Ham tell us what he thinks? Or would you prefer to be the arbiter of conversations, because it seems like you're trying your best to do that. Maybe that's why you took that comment that way...
Ham, in a direct response to me said "We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest." The "we're" was directed at me and him, as far as I could tell (especially since we had gone back and forth about 10 times).
So my intent was to make sure Ham knew that I had not started, and was not trying to talk about that topic, even though he thought we were. As I said, there was some obvious confusion between the two of us, if we couldn't agree about what we were talking about.
Does this explanation meet the Conversation Arbiter's standard?

Nobody is playing Conversation Arbiter, least of all me. I just thought your comment came off a haughty and condescending.

Of course, that is a criticism I hear often from those on the right about comments from those on the left. I guess when you are schooled in, "Here let us run your life for you because we can do a much better job than you can," you develop kind of a deaf ear to condescension.

Pot, meet kettle.

(02-16-2020 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 02:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why not let Ham tell us what he thinks? Or would you prefer to be the arbiter of conversations, because it seems like you're trying your best to do that. Maybe that's why you took that comment that way...
Ham, in a direct response to me said "We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest." The "we're" was directed at me and him, as far as I could tell (especially since we had gone back and forth about 10 times).
So my intent was to make sure Ham knew that I had not started, and was not trying to talk about that topic, even though he thought we were. As I said, there was some obvious confusion between the two of us, if we couldn't agree about what we were talking about.
Does this explanation meet the Conversation Arbiter's standard?

Nobody is playing Conversation Arbiter, least of all me. I just thought your comment came off a haughty and condescending.
Of course, that is a criticism I hear often from those on the right about comments from those on the left. I guess when you are schooled in, "Here let us run your life for you because we can do a much better job than you can," you develop kind of a deaf ear to condescension.

Pot, meet kettle.

Not that this is really worth it, but ????

(02-15-2020 10:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 07:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We're talking about acceptable vs unacceptable means of protest. The idea is that certain forms of protest (ones that try and shame an individual) shouldn't be acceptable because they are not the free market at work as someone said earlier, but tantamount to bullying. WHY someone is protesting or if there are alternatives to the thing being protested shouldn't make any difference to what is and is not acceptable. If we say, well, this is different, then it implies that some otherwise unacceptable actions would thus be acceptable... and I disagree with that (and you seem to as well, but this wasn't clear earlier)

Ham, I did not start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest. I simply indicated I felt one type could be considered the free market in action, while the other wasn’t. You jumped to the conclusion that me feeling like one was not the free market in action meant that it was unacceptable - I never said that or implied it.

I DID start or intend to talk about acceptable vs unacceptable forms of protest.... and I stared by saying that I wasn't really soeaking to you, but your comment made me think of something.... then while you accuse me of jumping to conclusions, I repeatedly supposed a logical inference, clearly open to the idea that you may believe diferently, but you repeatedly declined to clarify.

You accuse me of jumping to a conclusion, yet right here... YOU jump to the conclusion that 'not being free market' made it unacceptable. I actually said the opposite and you simply ignored it. Things can 'not be free market' and still be okay...

Post 11145, my very first on the subject.... I said the free market was you acting for yourself and encouraging others to do so as well. I then said, PEACEFUL protests, no problem. After 2 pages of back and forth, you agree with my initial point.

Quote:Something being different does not at all imply it is or isn’t acceptable. It just means that it’s different, and I never once even came close to implying that different = unacceptable.

You projected how you thought I would feel onto me, and then would not admit that for a long time. Kind of a pain in the butt to have this argument. This started from what I would consider a rather technical and inconsequential categorization on my part (free market vs not free market protests), but turned into you trying to tell me I was against the act of peaceful abortion protests. I may not agree with what the protests are about, but if they’re peaceful, they’re A-OK in my book.

I projected nothing. I asked... I even said in my first post, I have no idea if you agree or not and that I wasn't even really speaking to your comment. I LITERALLY said that..... and you decided to be confrontational rather than conversational.

You said it's different.
I said it's not different enough to matter to my point
You continued to argue about how different it was
I ASKED you why you were making such a pedantic point because although you continued to do it, you didn't say why it mattered. I ASKED if you were trying to say that it made a difference and you accused me of jumping to conclusions.

You argued merely for the sake of arguing.... and continue to do so now because you then came around to exactly what I said in my very first point on the subject.

The ONLY reason I can think of why it would matter if you were protesting a chicken sandwhich or abortion is the 'passion' with which someone might feel towards the situation (what makes them different)... and as I said in my first post, One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty.

Thanks for taking quite literally EVERY opportunity to disagree with me, only to finally admit that you agree 100% with everything I said in my first post on the subject.... including that I didn't know where you stood on the issue and wasn't even reallty speaking to you directly about it.

(02-16-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why not let Ham tell us what he thinks?

That was kind of my point to start with.

Well, we did, and I think he agrees with me.

You may not have intended to talk about it, but HE did. And it was HIS post, not yours. As I said before, last I checked, this was still a free country.

(02-17-2020 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why not let Ham tell us what he thinks?

That was kind of my point to start with.

Well, we did, and I think he agrees with me.

You may not have intended to talk about it, but HE did. And it was HIS post, not yours. As I said before, last I checked, this was still a free country.

This....

I specifically started by saying only that when I read Lad's post, it made me think about something (the issue I wanted to talk about). I specifically said that I wasn't really speaking to Lad's point... but was making my own that he may or may not care about or be interested in. Lad, since you then responded to me and my point without a similar disclaimer, it seems obvious that you were choosing to engage in MY topic.

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes or not reading carefully... that happens, especially on 'chat' sites... but holding me responsible for your misinterpretation of my clear intentions is not right. I inferred what I did because you clearly chose to engage in MY topic of discussion and you didn't address my query as to why you thought what you were saying mattered to MY point. Now I know it's because you weren't speaking to my point... but given the scenario, that seems to be your mistake and not mine. It was reasonable for me to assume that you were, since you quoted me and responded directly to me.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/

I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.

(02-18-2020 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/

I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

(02-18-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/

I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.

I wonder if that has ever happened before.

I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.

(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/

I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.

I wonder if that has ever happened before.

I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

(02-18-2020 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-brea...shirt/amp/

I guess in lads view, everyone at that Bernie Sanders rally should be culpable of assault.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

Interesting. Didn't like his political message, so he called him a racist. Then attacked him.

I wonder if that has ever happened before.

I think Lad is missing Tanq's point.

Yep. Hit the nail on the head.

I see no evidence that you are getting his point. If you do not want to discuss, just keep silent.

Any comment on the fracas at the bernie rally? If this was,, say, one old man hitting a Trump protester, we would never hear the end of it. In fact,, the one old man would be considered representative of all Trump supporters.

I think the attacker IS representative of left wing Bernie bros. The pattern is old - call the guy a racist, then attack him like the Antifas do.