o Sobs UNCONTROLLABLY as she and 6 ANTI-VAXXERS are ARRESTED!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
LinkPizza 01/25/22 6:17:54 PM #51:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... You talked about the majority participating in the protest. When I ask you about the remaining people, those not in the peaceful majority, they're also peaceful? I'll say this clearly so you understand. The majority doesn't matter. At all. The ones who are peacefully protesting are doing so peacefully, so they're should get arrested as long as they aren't breaking the law. The ones that are not peacefully protesting should be arrested. Whether the majority is peaceful or not doesn't matter... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... He didn't correct it. He went off on a tangent that ignored what I said. He did not... You said, "Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which is incorrect. (Again, not sure if sarcastic or not). And his response was, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is the correct statement. He was basically saying, there's no grounds for arresting the peaceful protesters, which corrected you post, which said you don't arrest protesters if most of them of peaceful. Which is false. You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:962073508] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>You talked about the majority participating in the protest. When I ask you about the remaining people, those not in the peaceful majority, they're also peaceful?</quote> I'll say this clearly so you understand. The majority doesn't matter. At all. The ones who are peacefully protesting are doing so peacefully, so they're should get arrested as long as they aren't breaking the law. The ones that are not peacefully protesting should be arrested. Whether the majority is peaceful or not doesn't matter... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't correct it. He went off on a tangent that ignored what I said.</quote> He did not... You said, "Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which is incorrect. (Again, not sure if sarcastic or not). And his response was, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is the correct statement. He was basically saying, there's no grounds for arresting the peaceful protesters, which corrected you post, which said you don't arrest protesters if most of them of peaceful. Which is false. You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/25/22 6:30:04 PM #52:	adjl posted... I have no difficulty with abstract thinking. You're just making up nonsense that has nothing to do with reality Abstract - existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. You clearly do. adjl posted... They did not participate in the act of arson in any way They're taking part in the same protest. According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty. And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place. Where is your logical consistency? adjl posted... Some local governments did try to push laws amounting to "you can be arrested for being in the same area... From what I unserstand it was common practice to arrest all people in a vehicle if one person had in the vehicle had drugs on them. This is not that different. adjl posted... Not commenting on it is not a deliberate effort to aid the arsonist But they did comment on it. And they were supportive of it. adjl posted... Being part of a protest does not make it legal. I'm starting to think you didn't pay attention to the news and how it was reported around that time. adjl posted... You're alleging that any violent crimes that are part of protests are somehow forgiven for the sake of the protest, which would be a legal decision made by governments . Wrong, it was society which decided that. adjl posted... you are suggesting that the government is conspiring to enable and encourage protests against its own ability to hold power No, I'm saying laws change to reflect social values. Maybe Mayor Lori Lightfoot intended to undermine the power of the government. Though I suspect that she didn't see herself as being part of the same government. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962073845] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>I have no difficulty with abstract thinking. You're just making up nonsense that has nothing to do with reality</quote>Abstract - existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. You clearly do. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>They did not participate in the act of arson in any way</quote>They're taking part in the same protest. According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty. And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place. Where is your logical consistency? adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Some local governments did try to push laws amounting to "you can be arrested for being in the same area...</quote>From what I unserstand it was common practice to arrest all people in a vehicle if one person had in the vehicle had drugs on them. This is not that different. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Not commenting on it is not a deliberate effort to aid the arsonist</quote>But they did comment on it. And they were supportive of it. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Being part of a protest does not make it legal.</quote>I'm starting to think you didn't pay attention to the news and how it was reported around that time. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>You're alleging that any violent crimes that are part of protests are somehow forgiven for the sake of the protest, which would be a legal decision made by governments .</quote>Wrong, it was society which decided that. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>you are suggesting that the government is conspiring to enable and encourage protests against its own ability to hold power</quote>No, I'm saying laws change to reflect social values. Maybe Mayor Lori Lightfoot intended to undermine the power of the government. Though I suspect that she didn't see herself as being part of the same government. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/25/22 7:00:57 PM #53:	LinkPizza posted... I'll say this clearly so you understand. Okay. I'll be sure to pay extra attention to everything you say. LinkPizza posted... The majority doesn't matter. At all. Rather strange that adgl focused on them then. LinkPizza posted... so they're should get arrested This bit is not clear. You want to arrest the peaceful majority? LinkPizza posted... The ones that are not peacefully protesting should be arrested. This bit is not clear. You want to arrest people who didn't protest. LinkPizza posted... Whether the majority is peaceful or not doesn't matter... This is where we disagree. And this is what adgl failed to address. News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. It holds significance. LinkPizza posted... He was basically saying, there's no grounds for arresting the peaceful protesters My post didn't say to arrest the peaceful majority. Talking about arresting the peaceful majority isn't the subject. It's whether to arrest or not the remaining people that we're talking about. LinkPizza posted... You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters... Again, this is where we disagree what was not addressed in the post. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962074731] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I'll say this clearly so you understand.</quote>Okay. I'll be sure to pay extra attention to everything you say. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The majority doesn't matter. At all.</quote>Rather strange that adgl focused on them then. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>so they're should get arrested</quote>This bit is not clear. You want to arrest the peaceful majority? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The ones that are not peacefully protesting should be arrested.</quote>This bit is not clear. You want to arrest people who didn't protest. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Whether the majority is peaceful or not doesn't matter...</quote>This is where we disagree. And this is what adgl failed to address. News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. It holds significance. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>He was basically saying, there's no grounds for arresting the peaceful protesters</quote>My post didn't say to arrest the peaceful majority. Talking about arresting the peaceful majority isn't the subject. It's whether to arrest or not the remaining people that we're talking about. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters...</quote>Again, this is where we disagree what was not addressed in the post. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 01/25/22 7:21:57 PM #54:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Rather strange that adgl focused on them then. You seemed more focused on them then he is, tbh... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This bit is not clear. You want to arrest the peaceful majority? Obviously a typo. Which should be obvious based on my other post. And the fact that it wouldn't make any sense to split them up from the non-peaceful protesters if I thought both groups should be arrested... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This bit is not clear. You want to arrest people who didn't protest? Oh. So you're pretending to be dumb, I see... The one who are protesting, but not peacefully should be arrested. We are talking about protesters. But I didn't realize you needed people to actually talk to you like you were a child. But I now realize that now... Sorry for the confusion... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This is where we disagree. And this is what adgl failed to address. News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. It holds significance. What the majority does doesn't matter when talking about who to arrest, though. You keep trying to say if the majority is peaceful, no one should be arrested. And that's false. The protesters who are protesting, but not peacefully, should be arrested regardless of whether or not the majority of protesters are peaceful or not. What other people are doing doesn't matter. What the non-peaceful protesters are dong does... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... My post didn't say to arrest the peaceful majority. Talking about arresting the peaceful majority isn't the subject. It's whether to arrest or not the remaining people that we're talking about. I didn't say you post said to arrest them. I was saying that his post was different from yours. Your post said to not arrest anyone if the majority was peaceful. That's wrong. Hs post said to not arrest the peaceful protesters, but implied that you arrest the non-peaceful protesters... Which is correct... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post. It was heavily implied, though. You seemed to have trouble understanding that, though. So, its not wonder you have trouble understanding what he implied... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:962075315] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Rather strange that adgl focused on them then.</quote> You seemed more focused on them then he is, tbh... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>This bit is not clear. You want to arrest the peaceful majority?</quote> Obviously a typo. Which should be obvious based on my other post. And the fact that it wouldn't make any sense to split them up from the non-peaceful protesters if I thought both groups should be arrested... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>This bit is not clear. You want to arrest people who didn't protest?</quote> Oh. So you're pretending to be dumb, I see... The one who are protesting, but not peacefully should be arrested. We are talking about protesters. But I didn't realize you needed people to actually talk to you like you were a child. But I now realize that now... Sorry for the confusion... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>This is where we disagree. And this is what adgl failed to address. News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. It holds significance.</quote> What the majority does doesn't matter when talking about who to arrest, though. You keep trying to say if the majority is peaceful, no one should be arrested. And that's false. The protesters who are protesting, but not peacefully, should be arrested regardless of whether or not the majority of protesters are peaceful or not. What other people are doing doesn't matter. What the non-peaceful protesters are dong does... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>My post didn't say to arrest the peaceful majority. Talking about arresting the peaceful majority isn't the subject. It's whether to arrest or not the remaining people that we're talking about.</quote> I didn't say you post said to arrest them. I was saying that his post was different from yours. Your post said to not arrest anyone if the majority was peaceful. That's wrong. Hs post said to not arrest the peaceful protesters, but implied that you arrest the non-peaceful protesters... Which is correct... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post.</quote> It was heavily implied, though. You seemed to have trouble understanding that, though. So, its not wonder you have trouble understanding what he implied...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler X 01/25/22 7:34:44 PM #55:	Rights come with responsibilities, they are not as absolute as Skard seems to think. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler X posted [p:962075671] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>Rights come with responsibilities, they are not as absolute as Skard seems to think. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/25/22 7:57:17 PM #56:	LinkPizza posted... Oh. So you're pretending to be dumb, I see... You said you were going to say it clearly so I'll understand. Since you were being so clear I assumed that was exactly what you meant. LinkPizza posted... You keep trying to say if the majority is peaceful, no one should be arrested. And that's false. That's how it was presented through news coverage. If it's not accurate then don't blame the public for being misinformed. Blame the the news media for misinforming the public. LinkPizza posted... Hs post said to not arrest the peaceful protesters Why is anyone talking about arresting the peaceful protesters? LinkPizza posted... It was heavily implied, though. You seemed to have trouble understanding that What was implied? As far as I can tell I said one thing and adgl said something contradictory to it. But I don't see an understanding on his part of what lead me to the conclusion I've reached, nor do I see any arguments to dissuade me from my statement. That is why I say he didn't address what he quoted. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962076331] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Oh. So you're pretending to be dumb, I see...</quote>You said you were going to say it clearly so I'll understand. Since you were being so clear I assumed that was exactly what you meant. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>You keep trying to say if the majority is peaceful, no one should be arrested. And that's false.</quote>That's how it was presented through news coverage. If it's not accurate then don't blame the public for being misinformed. Blame the the news media for misinforming the public. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Hs post said to not arrest the peaceful protesters</quote>Why is anyone talking about arresting the peaceful protesters? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>It was heavily implied, though. You seemed to have trouble understanding that</quote>What was implied? As far as I can tell I said one thing and adgl said something contradictory to it. But I don't see an understanding on his part of what lead me to the conclusion I've reached, nor do I see any arguments to dissuade me from my statement. That is why I say he didn't address what he quoted. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 01/25/22 8:39:32 PM #57:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... They're taking part in the same protest. And protesting is not arson, nor is it illegal in any way (at least, not in countries that value any degree of democratic freedom). Participating in the protest is wholly irrelevant to committing the crime of arson. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty. If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Now go back and rethink what you just said. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place. You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them. That would be ridiculous. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Wrong, it was society which decided that. Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests. News reports focused on the peacefulness of the majority because the violent minority was being used to discredit the movement as a whole. A great many people (mostly the sort of people that don't think it's a problem that police keep killing unarmed black people) were insistent on characterizing the protests as nothing more than a bunch of violent riots, under the pretense of wanting to lock up every single protester, but the reality was that the vast majority of protests were not violent at all (meaning there was nobody to arrest at all), and even for those that did turn violent, it was generally only a small handful of people (some of whom were just opportunistic troublemakers, some of whom were false flag instigators trying to discredit the movement (including a number of police), and some of whom were a part of the movement but let their tempers get the better of them) that were at all violent. That created a need to set the record straight. The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority that sought to generalize that to everyone involved, including calls to arrest all of them. Saying "you don't need to arrest BLM protesters just because this tiny minority was violent" is not giving a free pass to violent criminals just because they were part of a protest, it's telling people to stop suggesting that innocent protesters should be arrested. To be clear: Criminals should be arrested. This is true whether they're part of a protest or not. I don't know how you misinterpreted 2020 so completely as to not only think anyone was suggesting otherwise, but also to consider such imaginary suggestions to be legal precedent for dealing with every future criminal act committed during a protest, but you're very, very wrong. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:962077460] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>They're taking part in the same protest.</quote> And protesting is not arson, nor is it illegal in any way (at least, not in countries that value any degree of democratic freedom). Participating in the protest is wholly irrelevant to committing the crime of arson. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty.</quote> If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Now go back and rethink what you just said. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place.</quote> You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them. That would be ridiculous. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Wrong, it was society which decided that.</quote> Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests.</quote> News reports focused on the peacefulness of the majority because the violent minority was being used to discredit the movement as a whole. A great many people (mostly the sort of people that don't think it's a problem that police keep killing unarmed black people) were insistent on characterizing the protests as nothing more than a bunch of violent riots, under the pretense of wanting to lock up every single protester, but the reality was that the vast majority of protests were not violent at all (meaning there was nobody to arrest at all), and even for those that did turn violent, it was generally only a small handful of people (some of whom were just opportunistic troublemakers, some of whom were false flag instigators trying to discredit the movement (including a number of police), and some of whom were a part of the movement but let their tempers get the better of them) that were at all violent. That created a need to set the record straight. The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority that sought to generalize that to everyone involved, including calls to arrest all of them. Saying "you don't need to arrest BLM protesters just because this tiny minority was violent" is not giving a free pass to violent criminals just because they were part of a protest, it's telling people to stop suggesting that innocent protesters should be arrested. To be clear: Criminals should be arrested. This is true whether they're part of a protest or not. I don't know how you misinterpreted 2020 so completely as to not only think anyone was suggesting otherwise, but also to consider such imaginary suggestions to be legal precedent for dealing with every future criminal act committed during a protest, but you're very, very wrong. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 01/25/22 8:58:11 PM #58:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... You said you were going to say it clearly so I'll understand. Since you were being so clear I assumed that was exactly what you meant. No. You were acting like a child pretending to think I was talking about people not protesting when it was obvious to anyone who knows how to have a conversation that I was talking about non-peaceful protesters... Since our conversation was about protesters... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... That's how it was presented through news coverage. If it's not accurate then don't blame the public for being misinformed. Blame the news media for misinforming the public. That is not how it was presented in news coverage. But everyone in this conversation probably understands that you might have trouble understanding that. You can barely follow a conversation. So, it might be hard to understand that the news never made it seem like criminals should get away just because they are protesters. Unless you're watching some weird news that I've never seen... It's also possibly you didn't understand what they were saying. Or understand any context they gave with it... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Why is anyone talking about arresting the peaceful protesters? No one is. What I'm saying it you said to not arrest any protesters if the majority is peaceful. He's saying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I'm saying what you're saying is false, and what he's saying is correct. If you really don't understand common sense, that's a you problem... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... What was implied? As far as I can tell I said one thing and adgl said something contradictory to it. But I don't see an understanding on his part of what lead me to the conclusion I've reached, nor do I see any arguments to dissuade me from my statement. That is why I say he didn't address what he quoted. You really have that much trouble reading the part you replied to? I said, "You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters..." You said, "Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post." And I said, "It was heavily implied, though." So, I'm probably saying that the part you said wasn't addressed in the post was implied. And that part would be the part about arresting the non-peaceful protesters. Unless you were talking about something different... He implied to arrest non-peaceful protesters when he said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present. Therein we arrive at one of the major challenges in arresting troublemakers in large protests: finding them." He was saying how finding them to arrest them was hard. This seems to imply that he thinks they should be arrested. But gave a reason as to why it's hard to... Which he goes on to explain in future posts... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:962077920] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>You said you were going to say it clearly so I'll understand. Since you were being so clear I assumed that was exactly what you meant.</quote> No. You were acting like a child pretending to think I was talking about people not protesting when it was obvious to anyone who knows how to have a conversation that I was talking about non-peaceful protesters... Since our conversation was about protesters... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>That's how it was presented through news coverage. If it's not accurate then don't blame the public for being misinformed. Blame the news media for misinforming the public.</quote> That is not how it was presented in news coverage. But everyone in this conversation probably understands that you might have trouble understanding that. You can barely follow a conversation. So, it might be hard to understand that the news never made it seem like criminals should get away just because they are protesters. Unless you're watching some weird news that I've never seen... It's also possibly you didn't understand what they were saying. Or understand any context they gave with it... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Why is anyone talking about arresting the peaceful protesters?</quote> No one is. What I'm saying it you said to not arrest any protesters if the majority is peaceful. He's saying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I'm saying what you're saying is false, and what he's saying is correct. If you really don't understand common sense, that's a you problem... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>What was implied? As far as I can tell I said one thing and adgl said something contradictory to it. But I don't see an understanding on his part of what lead me to the conclusion I've reached, nor do I see any arguments to dissuade me from my statement. That is why I say he didn't address what he quoted.</quote> You really have that much trouble reading the part you replied to? I said, "You would still arrest the non-peaceful protesters..." You said, "Again, this is where we disagree and what was not addressed in the post." And I said, "It was heavily implied, though." So, I'm probably saying that the part you said wasn't addressed in the post was implied. And that part would be the part about arresting the non-peaceful protesters. Unless you were talking about something different... He implied to arrest non-peaceful protesters when he said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present. Therein we arrive at one of the major challenges in arresting troublemakers in large protests: finding them." He was saying how finding them to arrest them was hard. This seems to imply that he thinks they should be arrested. But gave a reason as to why it's hard to... Which he goes on to explain in future posts...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 01/25/22 9:22:32 PM #59:	UK is lifting all restrictions. Sounds like everyone in that room is behind it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyv64wD2dzM --- CaptainStrong posted... Drunk driving isn't as bad as going out in public unvaccinated. <cite>zebatov posted [p:962078549] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>UK is lifting all restrictions. Sounds like everyone in that room is behind it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyv64wD2dzM </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/26/22 12:22:26 AM #60:	adjl posted... If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice? If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious. adjl posted... You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them. I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested. But I thought you might because of the position you took. adjl posted... Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested. Society influences enforcement of the law on a local level. That was the very goal of the protests. The laws them self get changed when it becomes clear that one is unpopular and is no longer enforced. adjl posted... The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest. Were they also antagonistic toward it. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962082661] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice?</quote>If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them.</quote>I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested. But I thought you might because of the position you took. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested.</quote>Society influences enforcement of the law on a local level. That was the very goal of the protests. The laws them self get changed when it becomes clear that one is unpopular and is no longer enforced. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority</quote>What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest. Were they also antagonistic toward it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/26/22 12:22:32 AM #61:	LinkPizza posted... He's saying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be? LinkPizza posted... You really have that much trouble reading the part you replied to? No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave. LinkPizza posted... I'm probably saying that the part you said wasn't addressed in the post was implied. And that part would be the part about arresting the non-peaceful protesters. He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested. He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too. Have I got these details correct so far? What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his. LinkPizza posted... Unless you were talking about something different... I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962082664] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>He's saying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters.</quote>adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>You really have that much trouble reading the part you replied to?</quote>No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I'm probably saying that the part you said wasn't addressed in the post was implied. And that part would be the part about arresting the non-peaceful protesters.</quote>He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested. He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too. Have I got these details correct so far? What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Unless you were talking about something different...</quote>I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 01/26/22 1:12:30 AM #62:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be? I don't know how you don't interpret it the way I interpreted it. I think .most people would interpret the same thing. Most likely, he meant to arrest the ones who are non-peaceful. And I believe he even mentioned that later on. If you are interpreting it differently, that sounds like a you problem. But I think you're just pretending to not understand what he said. To most others, it makes sense that he was most likely saying to arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I think you actually understand that, but are pretending to be dumb, and saying you don't understand it... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave. Again, a you problem. I've explained it enough that a child could understand it. So I don't know what else I can do to help you understand a basic conversation... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested. He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too. Have I got these details correct so far? What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his. He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones. That's your made up delusion... So, no. You have not gotten the details correct so far... And it wrong to think that just because the non-peaceful protesters get a free pass just because there were in a protest where most protesters were peaceful... That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works... The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested... And adjl (you seem to have trouble with spelling his name even though it's only 4 letters) is correct that it can be very hard to actually find them... And it was implied that they should be arrested for being non-peaceful. But I understand you have trouble with basic concepts like implicationa and context clues... His quote was never to address what you said, but to correct it since it was wrong... Which I mentioned multiple times already... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other. Because his post was correcting you post. As I've mentioned multiple times. You said, "as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which was incorrect. He said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is correct. You're saying to not arrest anyone, even if they're non-peaceful. He's saying not do that. And implying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. They're both talking about who to not arrest. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. They are talking about literally the same thing. You seem to have trouble seeing that, though... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:962083515] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>adgl stated "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". I don't know how you interpret this to refer to anything other than the peaceful ones. I didn't say they should be arrested. Yet he had to explain why they shouldn't be?</quote> I don't know how you don't interpret it the way I interpreted it. I think .most people would interpret the same thing. Most likely, he meant to arrest the ones who are non-peaceful. And I believe he even mentioned that later on. If you are interpreting it differently, that sounds like a you problem. But I think you're just pretending to not understand what he said. To most others, it makes sense that he was most likely saying to arrest the non-peaceful protesters. I think you actually understand that, but are pretending to be dumb, and saying you don't understand it... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>No, I'm having difficulty applying it to the larger conversation because of the reasons I already gave.</quote> Again, a you problem. I've explained it enough that a child could understand it. So I don't know what else I can do to help you understand a basic conversation... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>He implied that he thinks the non-peaceful protesters should be arrested. He implied this by talking about arresting the peaceful ones too. Have I got these details correct so far? What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. You claim my response to adgl didn't address what he said in the quote. His response didn't address what I said when he quoted me. Which is a habit of his.</quote> He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones. That's your made up delusion... So, no. You have not gotten the details correct so far... And it wrong to think that just because the non-peaceful protesters get a free pass just because there were in a protest where most protesters were peaceful... That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works... The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested... And adjl (you seem to have trouble with spelling his name even though it's only 4 letters) is correct that it can be very hard to actually find them... And it was implied that they should be arrested for being non-peaceful. But I understand you have trouble with basic concepts like implicationa and context clues... His quote was never to address what you said, but to correct it since it was wrong... Which I mentioned multiple times already... SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>I was talking about how the right to protest applies to the story. adgl appears to be talking about how difficult it is to arrest a large number of people. So far I don't see how he's connecting the one to the other.</quote> Because his post was correcting you post. As I've mentioned multiple times. You said, "as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter." Which was incorrect. He said, "So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present." Which is correct. You're saying to not arrest anyone, even if they're non-peaceful. He's saying not do that. And implying to only arrest the non-peaceful protesters. They're both talking about who to not arrest. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. They are talking about literally the same thing. You seem to have trouble seeing that, though...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 01/26/22 1:50:50 AM #63:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... He used specific words which didn't apply to what he responded to. No, the 6 wouldn't get arrested because they're part of a protest. I know you have difficulty with abstract thinking so recall the actual news reports from 2020 and the reporters standing in front of buildings on fire. Now you might think that the people who set the fire are guilty of arson, and the other protesters are accomplices, and the news reporter who downplayed the seriousness of the crime are complicit in it and inciting people to commit more. But think about everything that's not on fire. Since as a whole it's still mostly peaceful it qualifies as being part of a protest and the arson isn't that much of an issue. You might have been concerned about the stores that were smashed up and looted. And the cost of just clearing away the debris is more than insurance (if they had any) will pay out to the owner thus ruining their livelihoods. But remember that it's not on the scale you would see if there had been enough violence to call it a riot so it's fine. I don't know where you got those notes, or what they're for, but they don't pertain to anything I've said. Wait is that what all your trolling is about? You can't tell the difference between the number 6 and a number in the thousands? <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:962084133] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>He used specific words which didn't apply to what he responded to. No, the 6 wouldn't get arrested because they're part of a protest. I know you have difficulty with abstract thinking so recall the actual news reports from 2020 and the reporters standing in front of buildings on fire. Now you might think that the people who set the fire are guilty of arson, and the other protesters are accomplices, and the news reporter who downplayed the seriousness of the crime are complicit in it and inciting people to commit more. But think about everything that's not on fire. Since as a whole it's still mostly peaceful it qualifies as being part of a protest and the arson isn't that much of an issue. You might have been concerned about the stores that were smashed up and looted. And the cost of just clearing away the debris is more than insurance (if they had any) will pay out to the owner thus ruining their livelihoods. But remember that it's not on the scale you would see if there had been enough violence to call it a riot so it's fine. I don't know where you got those notes, or what they're for, but they don't pertain to anything I've said.</quote>Wait is that what all your trolling is about? You can't tell the difference between the number 6 and a number in the thousands? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GGuirao13 01/26/22 3:25:18 AM #64:	If it's that chaotic and people are causing that much trouble, I'd bet her crying is real. --- Donald J. Trump--proof against government intelligence. <cite>GGuirao13 posted [p:962085119] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>If it's that chaotic and people are causing that much trouble, I'd bet her crying is real. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 01/26/22 9:19:10 AM #65:	LinkPizza posted... He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones. adjl stated "there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". Most of the people are peaceful. Why would he need to say there is no grounds for arresting them when no one was talking about arresting them? LinkPizza posted... That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works... How it should work is a subject for debate. How it does work is not since you can just look at the reality of what has happened. The reality being that there was public support for the violence. LinkPizza posted... The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested... I have given examples of society expressing that they shouldn't be. Which adjl is either unaware of or intentionally ignoring. LinkPizza posted... Because his post was correcting you post. Which he didn't. He stated nothing to demonstrate why his interpretation is right and mine is wrong. He's not even on the same subject. I'm talking about social forces blatantly showing approval for the violence. He's talking about logistics. Which is something that you don't seem to understand. LinkPizza posted... They're both talking about who to not arrest. We have two statements. Violent people in a protest don't get arrested. There is no reason to arrest the peaceful protesters. Both statements are about not arresting someone. This much is accurate. What is not accurate is that the second statement corrects or has any bearing on the first statement. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:962088860] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>He never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones.</quote>adjl stated "there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". Most of the people are peaceful. Why would he need to say there is no grounds for arresting them when no one was talking about arresting them? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>That's not how that should work, nor is that how it works...</quote>How it should work is a subject for debate. How it does work is not since you can just look at the reality of what has happened. The reality being that there was public support for the violence. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The non-peaceful one should definitely be arrested...</quote>I have given examples of society expressing that they shouldn't be. Which adjl is either unaware of or intentionally ignoring. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Because his post was correcting you post.</quote>Which he didn't. He stated nothing to demonstrate why his interpretation is right and mine is wrong. He's not even on the same subject. I'm talking about social forces blatantly showing approval for the violence. He's talking about logistics. Which is something that you don't seem to understand. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>They're both talking about who to not arrest.</quote>We have two statements. Violent people in a protest don't get arrested. There is no reason to arrest the peaceful protesters. Both statements are about not arresting someone. This much is accurate. What is not accurate is that the second statement corrects or has any bearing on the first statement. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 01/26/22 10:30:32 AM #66:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... adjl stated "there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". Most of the people are peaceful. Why would he need to say there is no grounds for arresting them when no one was talking about arresting them? The reason he said that is because he saying not to arrest the peaceful protesters since most of them would be peaceful in that scenario. And hes talking about arresting the non-peaceful ones. Thats how most people would read that because thats how its meant to be read. You have already shown to not understand how to read anything not directly told you you already. So, that should make things clear for you So, again, he never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones SKARDAVNELNATE posted... How it should work is a subject for debate. How it does work is not since you can just look at the reality of what has happened. The reality being that there was public support for the violence. How it should work is not up for debate at all. People should absolutely not eat a free pass to commit crimes just because they are in a group of other people who are not committing crimes. Anyone who thinks that isnt thinking at all There was also not public support of violence. Some people wanted violence. Those were the bad people. Most people were just protesting, though. And people were supporting the protest, but not then on-peaceful ones. So, again, thats not how it works, or how it should work SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I have given examples of society expressing that they shouldn't be. Which adjl is either unaware of or intentionally ignoring. And those examples have been shit. He explained why it was hard to actually arrest them. Most people actually want the non-peaceful ones to be arrested. Especially since it makes it harder for their protest to actually work SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Which he didn't. He stated nothing to demonstrate why his interpretation is right and mine is wrong. He's not even on the same subject. I'm talking about social forces blatantly showing approval for the violence. He's talking about logistics. Which is something that you don't seem to understand. Except he absolutely did correct you. What you said was wrong. And what he said was right You were wrong for thinking non-peaceful protesters should get a free pass just because the protesters around them were peaceful. He was right that the peaceful shouldnt be arrested, but the non-peaceful ones should be arrested And the subjects are the same, even if youre talking about different parts of the same subject, which is something that you dont seem to understand SKARDAVNELNATE posted... We have two statements. Violent people in a protest don't get arrested. There is no reason to arrest the peaceful protesters. Both statements are about not arresting someone. This much is accurate. What is not accurate is that the second statement corrects or has any bearing on the first statement. The whole statement is correct. You have to start using your common sense to see that both things are talking about the same thing. Of course, you seem to have been trolling throughout this topic, so youll probably still pretend to not understand --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:962090385] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>adjl stated "there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present". Most of the people are peaceful. Why would he need to say there is no grounds for arresting them when no one was talking about arresting them?</quote> The reason he said that is because he saying not to arrest the peaceful protesters since most of them would be peaceful in that scenario. And hes talking about arresting the non-peaceful ones. Thats how most people would read that because thats how its meant to be read. You have already shown to not understand how to read anything not directly told you you already. So, that should make things clear for you So, again, he never said anything about arresting the peaceful ones SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>How it should work is a subject for debate. How it does work is not since you can just look at the reality of what has happened. The reality being that there was public support for the violence.</quote> How it should work is not up for debate at all. People should absolutely not eat a free pass to commit crimes just because they are in a group of other people who are not committing crimes. Anyone who thinks that isnt thinking at all There was also not public support of violence. Some people wanted violence. Those were the bad people. Most people were just protesting, though. And people were supporting the protest, but not then on-peaceful ones. So, again, thats not how it works, or how it should work SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>I have given examples of society expressing that they shouldn't be. Which adjl is either unaware of or intentionally ignoring.</quote> And those examples have been shit. He explained why it was hard to actually arrest them. Most people actually want the non-peaceful ones to be arrested. Especially since it makes it harder for their protest to actually work SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Which he didn't. He stated nothing to demonstrate why his interpretation is right and mine is wrong. He's not even on the same subject. I'm talking about social forces blatantly showing approval for the violence. He's talking about logistics. Which is something that you don't seem to understand.</quote> Except he absolutely did correct you. What you said was wrong. And what he said was right You were wrong for thinking non-peaceful protesters should get a free pass just because the protesters around them were peaceful. He was right that the peaceful shouldnt be arrested, but the non-peaceful ones should be arrested And the subjects are the same, even if youre talking about different parts of the same subject, which is something that you dont seem to understand SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>We have two statements. Violent people in a protest don't get arrested. There is no reason to arrest the peaceful protesters. Both statements are about not arresting someone. This much is accurate. What is not accurate is that the second statement corrects or has any bearing on the first statement.</quote> The whole statement is correct. You have to start using your common sense to see that both things are talking about the same thing. Of course, you seem to have been trolling throughout this topic, so youll probably still pretend to not understand</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 01/26/22 2:59:29 PM #67:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious. Sure, but that's not what I said. The analogy - and the real-world situation - is a matter of people passively making it more difficult to arrest the criminals in question purely incidentally. There's no reason to believe there might be any grander plan in place and therefore no reason to consider them accomplices. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested. You explicitly identified them as accomplices. Accomplices to crimes should generally be arrested along with the primary culprits. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest. They're dumb. They're also an extremely tiny minority, so I'm generally pretty comfortable discounting them in speaking about the general situation. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Were they also antagonistic toward it. They were not antagonistic toward the cause, since they weren't trying to hurt it, but I would say that they generally didn't do it any favours, because they - however inadvertently - did characterize it as a violent movement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. They should be arrested because they committed crimes. They haven't been arrested, not because they shouldn't be arrested, but because it hasn't been feasible to do so. It's a simple practical issue, not any sort of magical immunity they get just for being part of a protest. My position is - and has always been - that being associated with a protest does not in any way influence whether or not somebody should be arrested for committing a crime. It often influences whether or not they do get arrested, because of the practical considerations, but that indicates nothing about whether or not they should. That is what you saw in the 2020 BLM protests (and some other larger-scale examples), and that is not in any way precedent for letting people get away with crimes just because they're protesting. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:962097806] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious.</quote> Sure, but that's not what I said. The analogy - and the real-world situation - is a matter of people passively making it more difficult to arrest the criminals in question purely incidentally. There's no reason to believe there might be any grander plan in place and therefore no reason to consider them accomplices. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested.</quote> You explicitly identified them as accomplices. Accomplices to crimes should generally be arrested along with the primary culprits. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest.</quote> They're dumb. They're also an extremely tiny minority, so I'm generally pretty comfortable discounting them in speaking about the general situation. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Were they also antagonistic toward it.</quote> They were not antagonistic toward the cause, since they weren't trying to hurt it, but I would say that they generally didn't do it any favours, because they - however inadvertently - did characterize it as a violent movement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested.</quote> They should be arrested because they committed crimes. They haven't been arrested, not because they shouldn't be arrested, but because it hasn't been feasible to do so. It's a simple practical issue, not any sort of magical immunity they get just for being part of a protest. My position is - and has always been - that being associated with a protest does not in any way influence whether or not somebody should be arrested for committing a crime. It often influences whether or not they do get arrested, because of the practical considerations, but that indicates nothing about whether or not they should. That is what you saw in the 2020 BLM protests (and some other larger-scale examples), and that is not in any way precedent for letting people get away with crimes just because they're protesting. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > 9 y/o Sobs UNCONTROLLABLY as she and 6 ANTI-VAXXERS are ARRESTED!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > 9 y/o Sobs UNCONTROLLABLY as she and 6 ANTI-VAXXERS are ARRESTED!!!