Of course it does; just like "there are bad people on both sides" sounds close enough to "Nazis are like totally awesome", to you.
I'm not sure whether your problem is lack of intelligence or lack of care, but either way I suspect I've been wasting my time trying to explain to you where you've gone wrong. You either can't understand, or don't want to understand.
A self-identified Nazi killing for Nazi reasons would be linked to Nazis.
Sure. And tell me, sweetheart, which "Nazi reasons" are there for a "Nazi" to drive a car into a crowd of random Democrats? Is there some bit of Nazi ideology which tells them to run over jaywalkers? Which aspect of Nazism, specifically, led to this killing?
Also note, when the media linked the killer to Nazis, the Nazis didn't denounce the killing.
What I'm noting is that you're lying, again. "Vanguard America" - the white supremacist group to which he was most closely tied - immediately tweeted that he was not associated with them. If saying "this fucker ain't one of us" doesn't count as "denouncement" in your world, it's no wonder you're all screwed up when it comes to whom trump denounced and when.
No. I did not lie. He defended a Nazi by indicating that the victim deserved it - "both sides" when one committed murder implies the victim was a murderer, and the killing could be seen as justified.
Of course you lied, and you're still doing it. Nobody ever asked him "hey, trump man, what did you think of that guy running over the speedbumb brigade?". They asked him to comment on the violence in Charlotsville. As in ALL the violence at the protest; not one specific event.
Now, maybe you're intentionally lying, or maybe you're too stupid to understand the distinction, or maybe just too ignorant to care. It doesn't really matter; the nonsense you keep repeating is still a lie, and you are still lying.
If the octogenarian was found with anti-Nazi materials and statements to the effect of pre-meditating the murder, then yes, I'd denounce the murderer.
Congratulations on once again avoiding the question! I didn't ask whether you would denounce HER, I asked whether you would denounce all female octogenarians. You know, her "side". Or are you confused about what the word "side" means in the context of a statement like "there were bad people on both sides"?
And you are the only one making up things. What do you think "hypothetical' means? Since you obviously don't know, it's a big word for "made up". Turns out, you should know the definitions of words you use. You literally make shit up, then your very next post complain that I make up shit. Pot, meet mirror.
The difference, of course, being that a hypothetical scenario is one which is acknowledged by the presenter as being made up, usually in the pursuit of demonstrating or determining a greater truth. Whereas you are just making shit up and pretending that it's literally true.
If you see the use of hypothetically as some form of hypocrisy you are far more ignorant than I first thought.
OK, so we can agree that you lied about him defending a murdering Nazi, which is why I'm curious if you would try to use the same "logic" when consisting my hypothetical scenario. That's not a strawman, that's just trying to figure out how exactly your mind... "works".
Turns out it "works" by making shit up and then just dodging uncomfortable questions. Who knew.
the quest for speed caused Firefox to dump much of the useful functionality of the browser
... which ones? I've been using the new version since it came out and I haven't noticed any lack of features.
Granted it broke a bunch of addons when it first came out, but most of them have been updated by this point or replaced with more or less equivalent ones.
That means that dealing with US police officers - especially for people of color - is significantly more dangerous in the US than in other countries.
No, that's just your assumption. It could just as easily mean that a significantly larger subset of people in the US prefer to "deal with" police by attempting to kill them. In fact, that is almost certainly the case; in 2012 (only year I could find info on) there were 84 attempts to kill German police officers, with only 3 killed. In the same year there were 47 US police killed by suspects. The previous year there were 72. I couldn't find any statistics on how many ATTEMPTS were made to kill cops in the US, but if we use the same attempt/success ratio as in Germany then the number should be somewhere around 1,300 attempts. That number is (coincidentally, I'm sure) about the same as the number of suspects who are killed BY police.
I suppose that in a purely technical sense your assertion that "dealing with police in the US is more dangerous" would still be technically true, but you're using a very euphemistic meaning of "dealing with". If you don't "deal with them" by attempting to kill them, perhaps your level of danger wouldn't be so high.
Thus why they would not want to call them in a crisis situation.
Then they are innumerate fools. The statistics are pretty easy to understand; anyone who has looked at the numbers and is still terrified of calling the cops either has no concept of probability or is simply irrational.
Repeating your silly attempt at proselytising does not magically make it on topic. Your entire diatribe boils down to "hurr my crazy beliefs are better than other crazy beliefs", which is pretty retarded, and definitely off topic.
What has happened is we see students and teachers in public schools punished for wearing a cross on a necklace, or praying silently before a meal.
I have no problem believing that this has occurred a handful of times. On the other hand it's ludicrous to suggest that this is policy, that it happens often, or that it is an actual problem in our society.
Ironically enough, you are a perefect example of the original topic: we need to teach kids how to properly evaluate their news sources. If you had learned how to do that you would not be discussing anecdotes as if they were broad trends.
Much of the Bible is a shortcut to the philosophy of a functioning society for those that lack the mental capacity to think it all through, children mostly but even adults can benefit from this. I've seen atheist just marvel at the compiled wisdom of the Bible. They don't believe a bit of the whole supreme being thing but they recognize the wisdom contained in Christian beliefs.
It's true; as an atheist I personally am in awe of the passages telling me how to treat my slaves. On my own I would have just kinda figured that maybe I shouldn't own people, but luckily some sand-people 2,000 years ago thought up detailed rules for how I can do it. That's my kind of wisdom right there.
That's unfortunate because trolling seems to be the one thing you're kinda good at. You're certainly not going to out-think or out-debate him... so if out-trolling is off the table, then you may as well give up and go home.
Correct; this is why the anti-authority retards are never going to have any real role in shaping the world; because rolling out rapid change on a global level does actually require the concentration of power. That's why anarchism and fanatical libertarianism both fail.
And you're conflating cherry-picking anecdotes with statistics.
Regardless of your shoddy attempts to illustrate the problem, I'm well aware that police in the US shoot more people per capita than police in Germany. What does that have to do with the nonsense which the OP was spewing?
Indeed, Marvel has just canceled the Guardians of the Galaxy comic book series.
Well, to be fair, the new movie kinda sucked balls. It's as if the director said "let's refilm the first movie, but simplify the plot, add more explosions, and make all the acting reminiscent of a middle school play".
I wouldn't have expected it to drum up comic book sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems close enough.
Of course it does; just like "there are bad people on both sides" sounds close enough to "Nazis are like totally awesome", to you.
I'm not sure whether your problem is lack of intelligence or lack of care, but either way I suspect I've been wasting my time trying to explain to you where you've gone wrong. You either can't understand, or don't want to understand.
You said he had no motive.
No, that's not even close to what I said.
You know what they called Nazi apologists after WWII? "Nazi."
You mean people were prone to making logical fallacies as far back as 1945? Wow. Crazy.
Irrelevant. Many vegetables are fruits. "Vegetable" is a culinary category, not a botanical one.
Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?
Eh ... so you think that attacking violent people is a Nazi thing?
I have no idea how we ended up here but it's probably time to stop.
A self-identified Nazi killing for Nazi reasons would be linked to Nazis.
Sure. And tell me, sweetheart, which "Nazi reasons" are there for a "Nazi" to drive a car into a crowd of random Democrats? Is there some bit of Nazi ideology which tells them to run over jaywalkers? Which aspect of Nazism, specifically, led to this killing?
Also note, when the media linked the killer to Nazis, the Nazis didn't denounce the killing.
What I'm noting is that you're lying, again. "Vanguard America" - the white supremacist group to which he was most closely tied - immediately tweeted that he was not associated with them. If saying "this fucker ain't one of us" doesn't count as "denouncement" in your world, it's no wonder you're all screwed up when it comes to whom trump denounced and when.
OK, so he misspelled n00b. It happens.
No. I did not lie. He defended a Nazi by indicating that the victim deserved it - "both sides" when one committed murder implies the victim was a murderer, and the killing could be seen as justified.
Of course you lied, and you're still doing it. Nobody ever asked him "hey, trump man, what did you think of that guy running over the speedbumb brigade?". They asked him to comment on the violence in Charlotsville. As in ALL the violence at the protest; not one specific event.
Now, maybe you're intentionally lying, or maybe you're too stupid to understand the distinction, or maybe just too ignorant to care. It doesn't really matter; the nonsense you keep repeating is still a lie, and you are still lying.
If the octogenarian was found with anti-Nazi materials and statements to the effect of pre-meditating the murder, then yes, I'd denounce the murderer.
Congratulations on once again avoiding the question! I didn't ask whether you would denounce HER, I asked whether you would denounce all female octogenarians. You know, her "side". Or are you confused about what the word "side" means in the context of a statement like "there were bad people on both sides"?
And you are the only one making up things. What do you think "hypothetical' means? Since you obviously don't know, it's a big word for "made up". Turns out, you should know the definitions of words you use. You literally make shit up, then your very next post complain that I make up shit. Pot, meet mirror.
The difference, of course, being that a hypothetical scenario is one which is acknowledged by the presenter as being made up, usually in the pursuit of demonstrating or determining a greater truth. Whereas you are just making shit up and pretending that it's literally true.
If you see the use of hypothetically as some form of hypocrisy you are far more ignorant than I first thought.
OK, so we can agree that you lied about him defending a murdering Nazi, which is why I'm curious if you would try to use the same "logic" when consisting my hypothetical scenario. That's not a strawman, that's just trying to figure out how exactly your mind ... "works".
Turns out it "works" by making shit up and then just dodging uncomfortable questions. Who knew.
the quest for speed caused Firefox to dump much of the useful functionality of the browser
... which ones? I've been using the new version since it came out and I haven't noticed any lack of features.
Granted it broke a bunch of addons when it first came out, but most of them have been updated by this point or replaced with more or less equivalent ones.
What am I missing?
That means that dealing with US police officers - especially for people of color - is significantly more dangerous in the US than in other countries.
No, that's just your assumption. It could just as easily mean that a significantly larger subset of people in the US prefer to "deal with" police by attempting to kill them. In fact, that is almost certainly the case; in 2012 (only year I could find info on) there were 84 attempts to kill German police officers, with only 3 killed. In the same year there were 47 US police killed by suspects. The previous year there were 72. I couldn't find any statistics on how many ATTEMPTS were made to kill cops in the US, but if we use the same attempt/success ratio as in Germany then the number should be somewhere around 1,300 attempts. That number is (coincidentally, I'm sure) about the same as the number of suspects who are killed BY police.
I suppose that in a purely technical sense your assertion that "dealing with police in the US is more dangerous" would still be technically true, but you're using a very euphemistic meaning of "dealing with". If you don't "deal with them" by attempting to kill them, perhaps your level of danger wouldn't be so high.
Thus why they would not want to call them in a crisis situation.
Then they are innumerate fools. The statistics are pretty easy to understand; anyone who has looked at the numbers and is still terrified of calling the cops either has no concept of probability or is simply irrational.
Ah, I see. So, hypothetically, if some old grandma runs over a Nazi, you would expect everyone to denounce octogenarian women?
Repeating your silly attempt at proselytising does not magically make it on topic. Your entire diatribe boils down to "hurr my crazy beliefs are better than other crazy beliefs", which is pretty retarded, and definitely off topic.
What has happened is we see students and teachers in public schools punished for wearing a cross on a necklace, or praying silently before a meal.
I have no problem believing that this has occurred a handful of times. On the other hand it's ludicrous to suggest that this is policy, that it happens often, or that it is an actual problem in our society.
Ironically enough, you are a perefect example of the original topic: we need to teach kids how to properly evaluate their news sources. If you had learned how to do that you would not be discussing anecdotes as if they were broad trends.
Much of the Bible is a shortcut to the philosophy of a functioning society for those that lack the mental capacity to think it all through, children mostly but even adults can benefit from this. I've seen atheist just marvel at the compiled wisdom of the Bible. They don't believe a bit of the whole supreme being thing but they recognize the wisdom contained in Christian beliefs.
It's true; as an atheist I personally am in awe of the passages telling me how to treat my slaves. On my own I would have just kinda figured that maybe I shouldn't own people, but luckily some sand-people 2,000 years ago thought up detailed rules for how I can do it. That's my kind of wisdom right there.
Probably because it's off topic and quite stupid.
But I'm not here to out troll him
That's unfortunate because trolling seems to be the one thing you're kinda good at. You're certainly not going to out-think or out-debate him ... so if out-trolling is off the table, then you may as well give up and go home.
Looks like the Russian trolls aren't just using Facebook any more!
No, that's not antisemitism, that's islamophobia. You're allowed to criticise Judaism and Christianity.
You think that "there's blame on both sides" qualifies as "hate speech"?
That's a pretty low standard even for an SJW. You're something special.
So basically anyone who shitposts is a Nazi.
And you wonder why everyone thinks you're retarded.
Correct; this is why the anti-authority retards are never going to have any real role in shaping the world; because rolling out rapid change on a global level does actually require the concentration of power. That's why anarchism and fanatical libertarianism both fail.
Yes, but THEY are suppressing it. You know how it is.
And you're conflating cherry-picking anecdotes with statistics.
Regardless of your shoddy attempts to illustrate the problem, I'm well aware that police in the US shoot more people per capita than police in Germany. What does that have to do with the nonsense which the OP was spewing?
Indeed, Marvel has just canceled the Guardians of the Galaxy comic book series.
Well, to be fair, the new movie kinda sucked balls. It's as if the director said "let's refilm the first movie, but simplify the plot, add more explosions, and make all the acting reminiscent of a middle school play".
I wouldn't have expected it to drum up comic book sales.