Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,587 posts, read 15,838,237 times
Reputation: 14053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Please quote where I have taken your words out of context and explain.
Please quote where I have advocated violence against college kids.
Please quote where I have obfuscated what you stated.
Every quote I supplied of yours is shown unaltered.
You've implied that I support genocide against homeless people, which is not correct, nor have I ever stated any such thing. OTOH, I recall you being an advocate for the man who assaulted a college student and permanently disfigured him, and suggested that it was his fault he became permanently disfigured.
Not to mention DEFENDING thugs who attacked people at a Trump rally in Costa Mesa in 2016 by stating that Trump supporters didn't have the right to be free of 'public protest'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
As I wrote, Luv, Trump's right to free speech has not been interfered with. The right to free speech is as I quoted, a right to be free of governmental interference or retaliation. It is not a right to be protected from public protest. Inside or outside of a public event.
And, as I asked, why would Trump supporters protest what has been said by other Republican or Democrat candidates? Who has been inciting the violence and painting discriminatory visions? Which candidate(s) predict and beg violence?
You've implied that I support genocide against homeless people, which is not correct, nor have I ever stated any such thing. OTOH, I recall you being an advocate for the man who assaulted a college student and permanently disfigured him, and suggested that it was his fault he became permanently disfigured.
I asked you for quotes of me taking your words out of context ... of me advocating violence against anyone ... of me obfuscating anything you’ve said. You’ve provided none. Whereas I quoted you directly and without alteration.
You want additional context for your advocating violence against homeless? Here’s another quote of you posting within a short time frame to your helicopter quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat
Is this bum too simply defending himself? Sure doesn't look like it to me. Filthy animals like that should be removed from the civilised world, whether they're in prison for life or otherwise.
What would “or otherwise” refer to, Exitus. Other than incarceration, what form of “removal” from the civilized world would there beother than killing them?
Now then, as to being an “advocate for the man who assaulted a college student and permanently disfigured him“ ... and speaking of context let’s revisit the circumstances a minute:
A college student and a homeless man were investigated by the LA County Prosecutor’s Office following a fight between the two in which the student was slashed in the face.
The student was one of a group of inebriated college drinking buddies who were roaming through a park at 3am after a night of drinking.
The student and his friends initially claimed they were confronted for no reason by a sole homeless person - who then without provocation slashed the student’s face with a piece of broken picture frame.
The homeless guy claimed the group confronted him and started messing with his stuff. When he stood his ground the student punched him and he retailiated in self-defense.
During the prosecutor’s investigation the determination was made, based on statements from all parties, that the student started the fight by throwing the first punch.
Now then, you, Exitus, before the investigation’s findings were reported, took the student’s side completely and proposed the homeless guy should be given a “Pinochet helicopter ride.”
I responded that in the absence of the findings of investigation, your accusation was pure speculation. I then proposed three scenarios were possible:
1. Your scenario in which a sole homeless guy assaulted a group of drunken college men without provocation
2. The college buddies assaulted the lone homeless guy for the “fun” of it
3. The college buddies harassed and goaded the homeless guy into fighting.
The Prosecutor declined to charge the homeless guy YOU proposed pushing out of a helicopter before the investigation was even completed.
If anyone would like to review the series of posts for accuracy of my summary, by all means do so. I look forward to it.
Within days of this you also posted the other quote referenced above suggesting “filthy [homeless] bums” should be “removed from the civilised world”.
There were other similar quotes I have not (yet) included. Plus the “electric cattle prod” quote, of course. Just a sampling of your advocacy for dealing violently with homeless, even as they are proven innocent.
Now, enough “context” and complete quoting for you yet?
Your turn to quote me advocating violence ... or accusing you out of context.
Not to mention DEFENDING thugs who attacked people at a Trump rally in Costa Mesa in 2016 by stating that Trump supporters didn't have the right to be free of 'public protest'.
There’s not a word of defense in that quote for thugs at the Trump rally. There is a simple statement of fact that no one, Trump supporters, Bernie supporters, HRC supporters, or any other supporters of anyone, have any “right” to be free of public protest.
Public protest is guaranteed free speech.
The “right to free speech” as described in the First Amendment is “freedom from government interference” of speech.
And exactly none of that inferred violence was acceptable, or defended violence of any kind in any way by any one.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,587 posts, read 15,838,237 times
Reputation: 14053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
I asked you for quotes of me taking your words out of context ... of me advocating violence against anyone ... of me obfuscating anything you’ve said. You’ve provided none. Whereas I quoted you directly and without alteration.
You want additional context for your advocating violence against homeless? Here’s another quote of you posting within a short time frame to your helicopter quote:
What would “or otherwise” refer to, Exitus. Other than incarceration, what form of “removal” from the civilized world would there beother than killing them?
Now then, as to being an “advocate for the man who assaulted a college student and permanently disfigured him“ ... and speaking of context let’s revisit the circumstances a minute:
A college student and a homeless man were investigated by the LA County Prosecutor’s Office following a fight between the two in which the student was slashed in the face.
The student was one of a group of inebriated college drinking buddies who were roaming through a park at 3am after a night of drinking.
The student and his friends initially claimed they were confronted for no reason by a sole homeless person - who then without provocation slashed the student’s face with a piece of broken picture frame.
The homeless guy claimed the group confronted him and started messing with his stuff. When he stood his ground the student punched him and he retailiated in self-defense.
During the prosecutor’s investigation the determination was made, based on statements from all parties, that the student started the fight by throwing the first punch.
Now then, you, Exitus, before the investigation’s findings were reported, took the student’s side completely and proposed the homeless guy should be given a “Pinochet helicopter ride.”
I responded that in the absence of the findings of investigation, your accusation was pure speculation. I then proposed three scenarios were possible:
1. Your scenario in which a sole homeless guy assaulted a group of drunken college men without provocation
2. The college buddies assaulted the lone homeless guy for the “fun” of it
3. The college buddies harassed and goaded the homeless guy into fighting.
The Prosecutor declined to charge the homeless guy YOU proposed pushing out of a helicopter before the investigation was even completed.
If anyone would like to review the series of posts for accuracy of my summary, by all means do so. I look forward to it.
Within days of this you also posted the other quote referenced above suggesting “filthy [homeless] bums” should be “removed from the civilised world”.
There were other similar quotes I have not (yet) included. Plus the “electric cattle prod” quote, of course. Just a sampling of your advocacy for dealing violently with homeless, even as they are proven innocent.
Now, enough “context” and complete quoting for you yet?
Your turn to quote me advocating violence ... or accusing you out of context.
There’s not a word of defense in that quote for thugs at the Trump rally. There is a simple statement of fact that no one, Trump supporters, Bernie supporters, HRC supporters, or any other supporters of anyone, have any “right” to be free of public protest.
Public protest is guaranteed free speech.
The “right to free speech” as described in the First Amendment is “freedom from government interference” of speech.
And exactly none of that inferred violence was acceptable, or defended violence of any kind in any way by any one.
Ok so...to infer is what the listener does; to imply is what the speaker/ writer does.
Attacking people at a political rally is not an exercise of speech. You have a twisted understanding of free speech.
Lmao ... so, in other words, I’ve provided enough “context” for you now? ... And you can’t mount any further defense of your postings that I identified as advocating violence against the homeless.
I do have more ammo if you’d like to continue.
But perhaps you can see that I thrive on disemboweling bigotry that has the potential to deepen the harm both the housed public and the homeless endure as a result of the modern crisis. That you find personal entertainment in making unsubstantiated accusations and suggestions for violent solutions is, as your leader in D.C. would sum up:
Ok so...to infer is what the listener does; to imply is what the speaker/ writer does.
Attacking people at a political rally is not an exercise of speech. You have a twisted understanding of free speech.
OC, this is funny on several levels:
1. It amounts to an ad hominem ... which is your favorite complaint against others.
2. It is entirely off-topic, serving your intent to try and discredit me individually (ad hominem), having nothing whatsoever to do with homelessness.
3. It / you fail entirely to quote or otherwise show that I defended thuggery at the Trump rally you refer to ... (in fact, no “thuggery” occured at that rally) ... if you, or any other interested party, clicks the quote link and then reads back through the series, you will find not one single reference to “thuggery” (other than your own accusation that such occured at rallies previous to the one you referenced) ... and especially no commentary of justification for any kind of violence from me.
What you WILL find is a lesson in the nature of the Constitutional First Amendment with regard to protecting “free speech” ... which protection is limited to “governmental interference”, as I quoted ... and, in fact, specifically allows for, and protects the right of, public protest of what others say.
The only “twisted understanding of free speech“ is yours, sir. You can look it up in exhaustive references and find only exactly what I said.
4. “Inference”, in logic, is what is drawn from premises to arrive at a conclusion, OC. You drew “inference” - falsely - from what I wrote, by fictionalizing what I never said.
There was no basis for you to draw “inference” of me supporting “thuggery” or violence from anything I wrote ... and where there was no violence in any case.
5. In addition to the ad hominem nature of your post here, it is against TOS to correct posters’ grammar and spelling. So, even though you are wrong about my application of the term “inference”, your intent is against TOS.
Now, would you like to try and draw any of your personal ire toward me into any connection with homelessness?
The vagrants all have weapons and those of us that actually go out side have seen the exposed hunting knives and cudgels. We need to to arm ourselves as well. the media is only reporting what they can't avoid- they are a business and will take from any entity to stay afloat at this point. A majority of the vagrants have long criminal records. They are high and outside and the early release and no bail laws will keep them out there - increasingly dangerous. Arm yourselves and be prepared - the police will not be there and don't seem to be interested in interfering with the money stream- besides the vagrants are dangerous and the cops are not interested in risking their lives over this mess!!
The LAPD says "its a classic example on LA's homeless problem" !!!! That's the quote to the news reporter!!
Homeless attack on an innocent man-- more manufactured and preventable crime!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHaIDBkvuS4
Time to get our conceal carry permits folks! At least get the largest knife you can legally carry or conceal and learn how to use it!!
Defend yourselves and/or help others in the same spirit of the good Samaritan in the video did!!
This post is an overt, flagrant advocacy and incitement to violence against the homeless.
Reported. I cannot believe forum developers or moderators wish to allow CityData to be a tool of social polarization and violence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
