What's on your mind?

[omzdog]

If I said it so many times you'd have an easy time quoting it.
Go ahead use my words against me.
But you can't because you and Wellen are beginning to strawman you way into appearing like you have defensible ground.

 

[Horcerer]

This is an appaling discussion.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

If I said it so many times you'd have an easy time quoting it.
Go ahead use my words against me.
But you can't because you and Wellen are beginning to strawman you way into appearing like you have defensible ground.

Geezus Christ fine. Another "last reply, promise" post then.
Do you want an explicit quote of you saying so? Because we both know you didn't. And we both know that your beautiful careful avoidance of doing so doesn't mean you didn't mean it.
But juzt to put an end to this, how about this:

Its not okay to harm people and in that case their grievances should be put through the proper channels.
But I don't see them harming people other than the cops.

It's not ok to harm people -> but they're only harming cops

And then it's implied over and over in posts like this:

Look you can choose to not be a police officer.
Nobody is forcing them to be police officers.
But knowing that you will or want to be an officer demands that you acknowledge that its a dangerous job that puts you at a higher standard than those you are oppressing/taking action against.

that getting hurt is par for the course and/or part of the job that they willingly signed up for.


Just **** off.

 

[omzdog]

In neither of those examples was I advocating for attacking cops.
I admit I should have been specific (and at the time I did begin to edit) that instead of "people" I should have said "civilians",
but that didn't make it through for some reason, likely from haste of posting.
Yet that doesn't change anything I'm not telling anyone to attack them,
and I'm not denying their rights as you claim.

Regardless, I'm beginning to see the futility and hypocrisy in arguing with a person who says rioters should be shot.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

It's funny because cops are civilians*
^{_{*dependant on definition used}}

Saying 'they shouldn't harm people/civilians' -› 'they only harmed cops' is explicitly accepting of the harming of cops.

Clarifying '"I should've said civilians'" doesn't actually make it sound any better.

 

[omzdog]

"Dependent on definition used"
I admit that I made that one mistake though,
of putting people instead of being more specific as I intended.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Mate, you deny them their "right to life and physical integrity", as for example the German constitution puts it, by alleging that they have to expect and accept to get hurt physically by random rioters for no other reason than them being cops.
Yes it will likely happen over the course of their career because it is indeed a job with risks, but you are seriously mistaking cause and effect if you say it's ok to physically attack them because of that.

 

[Austupaio]

Being a criminal is a dangerous profession as well, but usually it's preferred that cops don't just shoot them because they are criminals and therefore more likely to be shot... but I don't know why any of you are trying to reason with Antifa supporters.

 

[omzdog]

I'm not denying them right to life or physical integrity by acknowledging that violence was directed at them instead of civilians which is what I intended to mean.
But I will continue to assume that you understand yourself to be a total hypocrite for calling for the shooting of rioters.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

But I will continue to assume that you understand yourself to be a total hypocrite for calling for the shooting of rioters.

Except he still didn't... and has explicitly clarified that he didn't... and that that was simply you leaping to a stupid conclusion...

 

[omzdog]

I mean according what I understand, German civilians are covered by the German Constitution which you so readily made available when discussing violence against police officers.

 

[Antonis]

I don't know why any of you are trying to reason with Antifa supporters.

Regular exercise in futility can help brain activity and prevent Alzheimer.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

I mean according what I understand, German civilians are covered by the German Constitution which you so readily made available when discussing violence against police officers.

Which is entirely irrelevant. Because, again, Wellen did not call for them to be shot.

 

[omzdog]

If he wants to reply, I think he can speak for himself.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

I mean, he already did, so...

So you value property over life.
And who exactly is scum of the Earth again?

No? Where did I say so? I mean apart in your conjectures and in the obviously marked hyperbole in that post.

 

[omzdog]

Well he did say that it would be okay for a few of them[rioters] to be shot which demands further explanation considering why he so up in arms about the police getting hurt.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Notably, there is a difference between "I think they should be shot" and "I wouldn't particularly mind". There is no active endorsement inherent in the latter.

 

[omzdog]

Fair enough. Words are important. Even if the view is detestable.
But extend the same courtesy to myself.
I never actively endorsed violence against officers.

 

[Antonis]

By the sword you did your work, and by the sword you die. Converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Omnes enim, qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt/πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται..

 

[Lumos]

Well he did say that it would be okay for a few of them[rioters] to be shot which demands further explanation considering why he so up in arms about the police getting hurt.

So, if someone has to get hurt, and there's absolutely no way to avoid it, whom'd you pick?
A. A bunch of masked idiots who are breaking the law and damaging property and probably assaulting people; or
B. A bunch of dudes who are doing their jobs and trying to uphold the laws and standards of a developed society?

Hint: B is the wrong answer.