phoenixactual

Rank #7488 on Comments
no avatar Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to phoenixactual Block phoenixactual Invite phoenixactual to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/27/2013
Last Login:1/11/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#7494
Comment Ranking:#7488
Highest Content Rank:#5621
Highest Comment Rank:#4932
Content Thumbs: 370 total,  1405 ,  1035
Comment Thumbs: 1275 total,  2103 ,  828
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 34 Content: Peasant → Level 35 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 12% (6/50)
Level 211 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:6
Content Views:148832
Times Content Favorited:24 times
Total Comments Made:1697
FJ Points:1509
Favorite Tags: HORMONES (2) | trans (2) | Transgender (2)

latest user's comments

#17 - Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nat…  [+] (34 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -5
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#36 - There's another thing I've always questioned, why would the ve…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/27/2014 on Adam and Eve 0
User avatar #37 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
see, it wasnt considered wrong until we sinned. it just wasnt thought about that way, by god or by adam and eve. excluding nudists, it's the same as sex, you can absolutely have it. god created it, and he said it was good. but you dont have sex out in the streets, you dont walk around naked with your family. sex and nakedness, in and of themselves, are not inherently evil or sinful, but it's the way in which you approach it. i think one reason god currently disapproves of public nudity or things of that sort is because he is our father, in a closer way than the person that conceived you. you dont just hang around with your dad balls-out. i dont have particularly strong feelings either way towards nudists, because it is indeed how we were made to be, but still very questionable post-sin.

it's difficult to know whether or not we would have such technology as we do today if we sin had not come into the world, but i think it would not be necessary. like how adam's curse was difficult labor, if there was no sin we wouldn't have to work hard, and we wouldn't need labor-saving devices. i think things like art and music and science we would absolutely still have, probably even more beautiful than we currently or ever have had them. but things like iphones or laptops, we probably wouldn't have or need. i think i would prefer eternity with god over iphones.

i think we need to make a distinction between total ignorance and what we were in the garden. we didnt know to cover our bodies because we didnt need to. we didnt have anything to be ignorant of, until we werent ignorant.
#38 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Outside of hostile environments, though, clothes serve very little use, aside from covering nudity. True, armor is good for combat, and in cold environments, a decent bit of fur always helps, but there really is no functional purpose outside of this. As for nudists, well, you can think what you want about them, but in their communities, there's very little to complain about. As someone who enjoys frequent visits to public nude beaches, because the water against bare skin feels much more natural, in a clothing optional environment, there's very little judgement. Outside the kids who were always taught that nudity was directly linked to sexuality, nobody is staring at each other. The social interaction is almost exactly the same as any other public interaction, minus clothing. Now, here's an interesting hypothetical for you, coming from a scientist. If industrial life, meant to make life easier post-sin, never happened, what becomes of global communications? What becomes of discovery, or space travel, or any of the good that has come from the modern world. To put it better, what good is godly bliss if there's no drive to discover the universe around us? If, after all, creation was put here primarily for us, what would become of the great explorers, those men and women who went boldly into the face of danger for the betterment of the human race? What becomes of those of us who would wish to explore? Better yet, what happens to the planet, when generation after generation of undying humanity floods the earth, and it's corners become overrun?
User avatar #39 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
I think it could go both ways, we could have built spaceships hundreds of years earlier and already pollutant-less-ly inhabited other planets, we also could have stayed firmly on the ground. i cant say for sure whether we would become as advanced as instant global communication, or even if we would need to. i also wonder about population, since dying was never part of the plan. i'm just not sure. i apologize for not being able to answer everything
#40 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Why would we have? No industrial complex, no past wars from which to base rocket design off of, no quest to understand the universe around us, how would we have the drive to explore new worlds, discover new things, and search for answers in the fabric of space itself, when all things were known by god, and we could just get whatever answers we wanted whenever we wanted them. Where would be the drive for discovery? Our space travel capability was a direct result of thousands of years of development of rockets for warfare, ignoring for a moment the horrors of said wars, the results helped better the human race in the long run. Without all that, we don't have nearly the technological capabilities. Without war, we wouldn't have had the need to further develop the very explosives that would eventually lead to modern rocketry. Every aspect of the space race was, for better or worse, fueled by human warfare in the past. Without all that, we'd still be earth bound, maybe with limited flight capability. The industrial revolution fueled the experimentation that led to the use of electricity in the home, what happens when we don't need the industrial revolution to make lives easier? The modern world as we know it, all of our technology, for better or worst, is a product of 10000 years of hardship or more, depending on where your beliefs stand Without all the hardship, what would have been the point? We'd be totally content with our existence, we wouldn't have need for anything of the modern world. And I see a world, where nobody has the drive to learn and explore, as a nightmare
#34 - So I was mistaken. Still waiting to hear your take on the fac…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/27/2014 on Adam and Eve 0
User avatar #35 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
before we get in too deep heh heh heh , i just want to say that there's questions i cant answer, and ill never be able to answer. ill do my best but im far from having all the answers.

the way i see it, when the bible says that they 'saw that they were naked', it took on a different context. sex is an amazing thing, created by god, and so are our bodies. there was nothing wrong or dirty about them until sin. like how when you're 5, you can take a bath with your sister and there's nothing wrong with that, but you couldn't do that when youre 17 or 23. different meanings.

when you say 'the world around us', are you referring to land outside of Eden?
#36 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
There's another thing I've always questioned, why would the very natural state of the human body be considered "wrong"? If our nakedness pissed off god so much that it would be considered wrong, why would we have been made that way in the first place? Clothing isn't natural, and nakedness, even as an adult, isn't purely sexual. The fact that families, with children, can be nudists, kinda proves this on it's own. I speak of the modern world. Part of what created it was the fact that we were left to our own devices. Without god just handing everything out to us in paradise, we had to make our own way, and the result was a world diverse in every way. Again, would you prefer a world of ignorance, spent in total obedience? Or one where the gift of free will can actually be utilized?
User avatar #37 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
see, it wasnt considered wrong until we sinned. it just wasnt thought about that way, by god or by adam and eve. excluding nudists, it's the same as sex, you can absolutely have it. god created it, and he said it was good. but you dont have sex out in the streets, you dont walk around naked with your family. sex and nakedness, in and of themselves, are not inherently evil or sinful, but it's the way in which you approach it. i think one reason god currently disapproves of public nudity or things of that sort is because he is our father, in a closer way than the person that conceived you. you dont just hang around with your dad balls-out. i dont have particularly strong feelings either way towards nudists, because it is indeed how we were made to be, but still very questionable post-sin.

it's difficult to know whether or not we would have such technology as we do today if we sin had not come into the world, but i think it would not be necessary. like how adam's curse was difficult labor, if there was no sin we wouldn't have to work hard, and we wouldn't need labor-saving devices. i think things like art and music and science we would absolutely still have, probably even more beautiful than we currently or ever have had them. but things like iphones or laptops, we probably wouldn't have or need. i think i would prefer eternity with god over iphones.

i think we need to make a distinction between total ignorance and what we were in the garden. we didnt know to cover our bodies because we didnt need to. we didnt have anything to be ignorant of, until we werent ignorant.
#38 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Outside of hostile environments, though, clothes serve very little use, aside from covering nudity. True, armor is good for combat, and in cold environments, a decent bit of fur always helps, but there really is no functional purpose outside of this. As for nudists, well, you can think what you want about them, but in their communities, there's very little to complain about. As someone who enjoys frequent visits to public nude beaches, because the water against bare skin feels much more natural, in a clothing optional environment, there's very little judgement. Outside the kids who were always taught that nudity was directly linked to sexuality, nobody is staring at each other. The social interaction is almost exactly the same as any other public interaction, minus clothing. Now, here's an interesting hypothetical for you, coming from a scientist. If industrial life, meant to make life easier post-sin, never happened, what becomes of global communications? What becomes of discovery, or space travel, or any of the good that has come from the modern world. To put it better, what good is godly bliss if there's no drive to discover the universe around us? If, after all, creation was put here primarily for us, what would become of the great explorers, those men and women who went boldly into the face of danger for the betterment of the human race? What becomes of those of us who would wish to explore? Better yet, what happens to the planet, when generation after generation of undying humanity floods the earth, and it's corners become overrun?
User avatar #39 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
I think it could go both ways, we could have built spaceships hundreds of years earlier and already pollutant-less-ly inhabited other planets, we also could have stayed firmly on the ground. i cant say for sure whether we would become as advanced as instant global communication, or even if we would need to. i also wonder about population, since dying was never part of the plan. i'm just not sure. i apologize for not being able to answer everything
#40 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Why would we have? No industrial complex, no past wars from which to base rocket design off of, no quest to understand the universe around us, how would we have the drive to explore new worlds, discover new things, and search for answers in the fabric of space itself, when all things were known by god, and we could just get whatever answers we wanted whenever we wanted them. Where would be the drive for discovery? Our space travel capability was a direct result of thousands of years of development of rockets for warfare, ignoring for a moment the horrors of said wars, the results helped better the human race in the long run. Without all that, we don't have nearly the technological capabilities. Without war, we wouldn't have had the need to further develop the very explosives that would eventually lead to modern rocketry. Every aspect of the space race was, for better or worse, fueled by human warfare in the past. Without all that, we'd still be earth bound, maybe with limited flight capability. The industrial revolution fueled the experimentation that led to the use of electricity in the home, what happens when we don't need the industrial revolution to make lives easier? The modern world as we know it, all of our technology, for better or worst, is a product of 10000 years of hardship or more, depending on where your beliefs stand Without all the hardship, what would have been the point? We'd be totally content with our existence, we wouldn't have need for anything of the modern world. And I see a world, where nobody has the drive to learn and explore, as a nightmare
#14 - Because the KKK has such a history of non-violence, and totall…  [+] (37 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -7
User avatar #16 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You don't hear about the bad things from the "Politically Correct" side, because it's not Politically Correct. There is no "right side of history". There's just a "popular side of history".
User avatar #15 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/death-threats-target-ex-ferguson-darren-wilson-article-1.2031577
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/darren-wilson-lawyer-death-threats-show-need-vigilance
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-hiding-under-police-protection-because-death-threats-1477842

There have been three KKKs. The first one started as a neighbourhood watch program, similar to the Bloods or Krips. The second one emerged using KKK as a reason to scare blacks and lynch them after the emancipation proclamation. The third one is a political activist group.
The Krips and Bloods right now are similar to the second one (which has been disbanded for many years now).
Also, the KKK didn't make death threats. Death threats need to be worded so that the speaker says that they are going to commit the crime, wheras the KKK said that the violent protesters should be shot. That is not a death threat in any way. It's similar to saying "go kill yourself". It's completely legal. Meanwhile, saying "I am going to kill Darren WIlson" is in fact, illegal.
#17 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nationwide, I was asking when the two gangs in question publicly threatened pro-cop demonstrators. By the way, KKK leaders did indeed directly threaten violence against protestors in Ferguson, their threats included the non-violent. Don't ignore history, now, it's actually against you on this one
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#12 - Yeah, people kinda tend to forget those little details. …  [+] (39 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -2
User avatar #13 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And black gangs like the Bloods and the Krips support Mike Brown. Gangs that actually kill people, not just a group of people that say bad words and make angry faces.
#14 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Because the KKK has such a history of non-violence, and totally didn't give public death threats against protestors in Ferguson, violent or non-violent. What do you expect? Black dude gets shot, cop has a history of known racism, of course black people are going to support him. The difference here, again, being, you know, KKK members making death threats vs. gang members just showing support Or did the bloods and krips make verbal threats against pro-cop protestors in Ferguson, that somehow weren't covered by any news outlet in the country? Just saying, I don't seem to remember anybody covering that side of the story, meanwhile actual threats of violence were being made by white supremacists
User avatar #16 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You don't hear about the bad things from the "Politically Correct" side, because it's not Politically Correct. There is no "right side of history". There's just a "popular side of history".
User avatar #15 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/death-threats-target-ex-ferguson-darren-wilson-article-1.2031577
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/darren-wilson-lawyer-death-threats-show-need-vigilance
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-hiding-under-police-protection-because-death-threats-1477842

There have been three KKKs. The first one started as a neighbourhood watch program, similar to the Bloods or Krips. The second one emerged using KKK as a reason to scare blacks and lynch them after the emancipation proclamation. The third one is a political activist group.
The Krips and Bloods right now are similar to the second one (which has been disbanded for many years now).
Also, the KKK didn't make death threats. Death threats need to be worded so that the speaker says that they are going to commit the crime, wheras the KKK said that the violent protesters should be shot. That is not a death threat in any way. It's similar to saying "go kill yourself". It's completely legal. Meanwhile, saying "I am going to kill Darren WIlson" is in fact, illegal.
#17 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nationwide, I was asking when the two gangs in question publicly threatened pro-cop demonstrators. By the way, KKK leaders did indeed directly threaten violence against protestors in Ferguson, their threats included the non-violent. Don't ignore history, now, it's actually against you on this one
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#11 - See, here's the problem. The moment the departments in questi… 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -4
#8 - Right, except black people are legitimately targeted considera…  [+] (42 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -7
User avatar #10 - nazkillah (12/27/2014) [-]
That's true, stereotypes and social stigma's are resposible for things like this. The reason blacks are targeted more lies deeper than we think, it's a multiplicity of influences that manifest in our subconsciousness. Human behavior cannot truly be defined. Therefore, punishing one or more individuals for certain deeds won't make the difference and will only act like gasoline on a fire. Hitting/shooting before asking questions is unreasonable and is never justified. What I am trying to say is that all this shouldn't be a race issue. But unfortunatly lots of people who can express their opinion are unable to think with reason and only see what their eyes see and how they interpret it.
#12 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Yeah, people kinda tend to forget those little details. Not to mention, the fucking KKK came to the defense of Darren Wilson. When the KKK backs someone up, maybe it's time to consider the possibility
User avatar #13 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And black gangs like the Bloods and the Krips support Mike Brown. Gangs that actually kill people, not just a group of people that say bad words and make angry faces.
#14 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Because the KKK has such a history of non-violence, and totally didn't give public death threats against protestors in Ferguson, violent or non-violent. What do you expect? Black dude gets shot, cop has a history of known racism, of course black people are going to support him. The difference here, again, being, you know, KKK members making death threats vs. gang members just showing support Or did the bloods and krips make verbal threats against pro-cop protestors in Ferguson, that somehow weren't covered by any news outlet in the country? Just saying, I don't seem to remember anybody covering that side of the story, meanwhile actual threats of violence were being made by white supremacists
User avatar #16 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You don't hear about the bad things from the "Politically Correct" side, because it's not Politically Correct. There is no "right side of history". There's just a "popular side of history".
User avatar #15 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/death-threats-target-ex-ferguson-darren-wilson-article-1.2031577
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/darren-wilson-lawyer-death-threats-show-need-vigilance
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-hiding-under-police-protection-because-death-threats-1477842

There have been three KKKs. The first one started as a neighbourhood watch program, similar to the Bloods or Krips. The second one emerged using KKK as a reason to scare blacks and lynch them after the emancipation proclamation. The third one is a political activist group.
The Krips and Bloods right now are similar to the second one (which has been disbanded for many years now).
Also, the KKK didn't make death threats. Death threats need to be worded so that the speaker says that they are going to commit the crime, wheras the KKK said that the violent protesters should be shot. That is not a death threat in any way. It's similar to saying "go kill yourself". It's completely legal. Meanwhile, saying "I am going to kill Darren WIlson" is in fact, illegal.
#17 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nationwide, I was asking when the two gangs in question publicly threatened pro-cop demonstrators. By the way, KKK leaders did indeed directly threaten violence against protestors in Ferguson, their threats included the non-violent. Don't ignore history, now, it's actually against you on this one
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#11 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
See, here's the problem. The moment the departments in question started targeting blacks specifically, it became a race issue. People often ignore that very fact, while backing up racial profiling by cops, at times. In Michael Brown's case, the cop had a past history of investigation for racial profiling. He got fired for it before. Meanwhile, in NY, a city which has been under constant investigation for racial profiling, you have the Eric Garner case. In both cases, the departments in question were being investigated for profiling. In one, the cop had already been in trouble for it. How are these both not race issues, again?
#6 - Facts be damned, huh?  [+] (12 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -11
User avatar #21 - gmarrox (12/27/2014) [-]
I guess so; you haven't posted any yet.
#32 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the Coroner's office declared Garner's death to be homicide. Alongside witness testimony on scene. That enough for you? Here's the story, in case you still think I'm not posting anything: www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Chokehold-Police-Custody-Cause-of-Death-Staten-Island-Medical-Examiner-269396151.html
User avatar #86 - MrDeadiron (12/27/2014) [-]
The witnesses testimonies conflicted with the corners report and many witness admitted they lied later.
User avatar #67 - thegameujustlost (12/27/2014) [-]
Well im not from the USA so I dont really know whats going on, but from my point of view you have a big problem with the police force, and this problem is not racism. Is about cops beeing poorly prepared and trained to interact with the civilian. Police brutality and easy trigger seem pretty wide spread in your country.

Also where does this white supremacy bullshit comes from? Aren't you allowed to be a cop if you're black? Aren't there pretty strong antydiscrimination laws? Aren't there lawsuits to be won if a public force or a private bussines discriminates against you based on the color of your skin?
#70 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
White supremacy comes in when racial profiling becomes a widespread issue across all 50 states thought I covered that one already . As for anti discrimination laws in the US, anybody with eyes should be able to see we're nowhere near where we need to be on this one.
User avatar #76 - thegameujustlost (12/27/2014) [-]
Why not? If im not wrong the employer has to prove his inocence when faced with a discrimination lawsuit. What else can you wish for? This is an actual quesiton.

Another faggot crying about racial profiling, you sound like the potheads and in my country that cry about uh cops are bastards because they stop and search me just because how I look and dress. Yet every single one of them smokes or deals weed and obviously everytime a police officer searchs them they found something.

Flash news buddy they use racial profiling because it fucking works. If 90% of people who look like a gangsta does gangsta shit maybe you can use this in your favor huh?

And yeah I repeat im not from USA but I doubt american police officers stop and search a suited up black guy.

#52 - notafunnyguy (12/27/2014) [-]
nobody gives a shit about garner.
we're talking about brown.
#87 - anonymous (12/27/2014) [-]
How are you gonna say noone gives a fuck about Garner, they literally choked the motherfucker out on tape and walked away.
#54 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Actually, the very first post, the post that started this entire conversation, the post that literally every person in this thread has been responding to since the start, was entirely about Garner. I should know, it's my fucking post
#55 - notafunnyguy (12/27/2014) [-]
dude, you suck at trolling. go back to tumblr. you're an amature. :^)
#58 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Seriously? I said very specifically at the start of this thread that I wasn't bringing up Mike Brown, I think you need to learn to read
#24 - Mawxter (12/27/2014) [-]
#4 - Eric Garner's death. All present witnesses claim excessive fo…  [+] (44 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -1
User avatar #7 - nazkillah (12/27/2014) [-]
Police brutality =/= white supremacy. Cops are holy in America. It doesn't matter if the victim's either white or black, the cop gets away with it.

Remember Thomas Kelly? A white homeless man who got beaten up, strangled, tazed and eventually killed by 3-6 cops. He was literally tortured for 10-15 minutes, crying for his father (the video footage can be found on youtube). Charges were pressed against three cops, of wich two are from Mexican descent. The charges were dropped and the story didn't get anywhere nearly as big as the shit that went down in Ferguson. White supremacy, eh?

Police brutality and the use of excessive force is something both sides deal with. Just because the victim is black shouldn't mean that the cop should be punished harder. Don't blame the race, blame the fucking government, blame the structure of American law, blame the system. The US with its political corectness, laws and racial issues can kiss my mulate ass, shit's rotten to the core I say.
#8 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except black people are legitimately targeted considerably more than white. There's a reason nearly every state has some formof a racial profiling investigation against police departments statewide
User avatar #10 - nazkillah (12/27/2014) [-]
That's true, stereotypes and social stigma's are resposible for things like this. The reason blacks are targeted more lies deeper than we think, it's a multiplicity of influences that manifest in our subconsciousness. Human behavior cannot truly be defined. Therefore, punishing one or more individuals for certain deeds won't make the difference and will only act like gasoline on a fire. Hitting/shooting before asking questions is unreasonable and is never justified. What I am trying to say is that all this shouldn't be a race issue. But unfortunatly lots of people who can express their opinion are unable to think with reason and only see what their eyes see and how they interpret it.
#12 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Yeah, people kinda tend to forget those little details. Not to mention, the fucking KKK came to the defense of Darren Wilson. When the KKK backs someone up, maybe it's time to consider the possibility
User avatar #13 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And black gangs like the Bloods and the Krips support Mike Brown. Gangs that actually kill people, not just a group of people that say bad words and make angry faces.
#14 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Because the KKK has such a history of non-violence, and totally didn't give public death threats against protestors in Ferguson, violent or non-violent. What do you expect? Black dude gets shot, cop has a history of known racism, of course black people are going to support him. The difference here, again, being, you know, KKK members making death threats vs. gang members just showing support Or did the bloods and krips make verbal threats against pro-cop protestors in Ferguson, that somehow weren't covered by any news outlet in the country? Just saying, I don't seem to remember anybody covering that side of the story, meanwhile actual threats of violence were being made by white supremacists
User avatar #16 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You don't hear about the bad things from the "Politically Correct" side, because it's not Politically Correct. There is no "right side of history". There's just a "popular side of history".
User avatar #15 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/death-threats-target-ex-ferguson-darren-wilson-article-1.2031577
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/darren-wilson-lawyer-death-threats-show-need-vigilance
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-hiding-under-police-protection-because-death-threats-1477842

There have been three KKKs. The first one started as a neighbourhood watch program, similar to the Bloods or Krips. The second one emerged using KKK as a reason to scare blacks and lynch them after the emancipation proclamation. The third one is a political activist group.
The Krips and Bloods right now are similar to the second one (which has been disbanded for many years now).
Also, the KKK didn't make death threats. Death threats need to be worded so that the speaker says that they are going to commit the crime, wheras the KKK said that the violent protesters should be shot. That is not a death threat in any way. It's similar to saying "go kill yourself". It's completely legal. Meanwhile, saying "I am going to kill Darren WIlson" is in fact, illegal.
#17 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nationwide, I was asking when the two gangs in question publicly threatened pro-cop demonstrators. By the way, KKK leaders did indeed directly threaten violence against protestors in Ferguson, their threats included the non-violent. Don't ignore history, now, it's actually against you on this one
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#11 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
See, here's the problem. The moment the departments in question started targeting blacks specifically, it became a race issue. People often ignore that very fact, while backing up racial profiling by cops, at times. In Michael Brown's case, the cop had a past history of investigation for racial profiling. He got fired for it before. Meanwhile, in NY, a city which has been under constant investigation for racial profiling, you have the Eric Garner case. In both cases, the departments in question were being investigated for profiling. In one, the cop had already been in trouble for it. How are these both not race issues, again?
#2 - Nah, racism is comparing every single peaceful protestor of co…  [+] (78 new replies) 12/27/2014 on when in doubt, insult the baby -44
User avatar #80 - thradrenaa (12/27/2014) [-]
You do understand homicide doesn't mean murder right? Like you know what homicide means right? You're not just saying things you've heard without researching it right?

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

Go ahead and read that. There are many forms of homicide. The coroner saying its a homicide literally only means that another human contributed in some way to his death. The coroner has no legal authority to say that the homicide was a felony or not only that it happened. A court of law is the one that decides the legal culpability of the other party involved and in this case they ruled that it was not a felony.
#75 - nagafever (12/27/2014) [-]
**nagafever used "*roll picture*"**
**nagafever rolled image** I understand admin promised not to ban anyone for their opinions and whatnot, but what you're doing right now is not uttering your opinion, nor are you being a troll. you're just a fucktard with too much time to waste, like bieber and uchiha, which means by banning you admin would be helping you
#19 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
lol at peaceful colored protestors.
fuck outta here you uneducated faggot.
User avatar #63 - ericzxvc (12/27/2014) [-]
"uneducated faggot", did you try? I really hope not.
#27 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, because a few riots in Ferguson that have largely died down are totally the same as people in every city practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free peaceful protest
#29 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
At the end of the day you're an idiot, there's nothing to protest. Blacks aren't being gunned down by police. Criminals are.
If blacks didn't feel so fucking entitled maybe they'd be productive members of society.
#31 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Ok, here's the problem. When you're unarmed, and you're standing over 100 feet away from the cop, you don't pose enough of a threat to justify getting shot, no matter how many cigars you stole from a grocery store that really had nothing to do with why you were stopped by said cop. When you're choking, and you're unarmed, and the cops refuse to let any of the witnesses on scene give you any kind of aid after you've passed out, there's no justifying that. Yeah, again, all witnesses on site say the death of Eric Garner was totally unjustified. When you are unarmed, and pose no threat to the cop whatsoever, lethal force is not justified. How is that so hard for you to understand?
#33 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
Mike Brown was a criminal, better dead than receiving my tax dollars.
The officer's choke hold din't kill Eric Garner, years and years of fatty foods and obesity killed Eric Garner.
The dumbass 12 year old w/ the pellet gun? Deserved every bullet he took.
The criminal at the gas station? Deserved every bullet he took.

None of these people are productive members of society, none had a place or a right to live.

How is that hard for you to understand?
#38 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
The coroner ruled the death a homicide
The coroner ruled the death a homicide
The coroner ruled the death a homicide

I guess the opinion of the medical professional who investigated the death means absolute shit, right? Why should we listen to the guy the cops fucking hired to investigate the body? He only studied this shit enough to make a career out of it, he has no fucking clue what he's talking about, right? Since when does a robbery that wasn't even related to the shooting warrant a death penalty? Since when is it ok to choke to death someone on the side of the street when they're offering no resistance at the time? Again, since when is it perfectly acceptable to kill someone who poses no threat to you whatsoever? So far as I can remember, Killing someone who poses no threat to you has always been called murder. But it's ok, because Garner was fat, so he was worth less as a human being than you. But it's ok, Brown stole a few cigars, that's totally a perfect reason to kill him, right?
#39 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
Brown wasn't killed over cigars you fucking idiot. He was stopped because he stole cigars, he was killed because he attacked an officer.
Black people aren't all as stupid as you are they?
#41 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the police department has already said Wilson had no fucking clue Brown was involved in the robbery. Now, you tried to say Brown was a criminal, he deserved what he got. You know what's incredible about how he died? He posed absolutely no threat whatsoever at the time the killing shots hit him. He was over a hundred feet away at the time. Now, that being said, let's take a look at the two testimonies, from Wilson, and Brown's friend. Both say Brown broke free from the cop car, and started running away. Perfectly reasonable, he just got fucking shot. Ok. Next, he stops, and turns to face Wilson. Again, understandable, you just got shot, you just heard the guy who shot you get out of his car as you were running away, what do you do now? Wilson's story says he reached into his waistband, as if to pull a gun on him, and he felt immediately threatened. Just for a second, seriously ask yourself, how the fuck does that remotely make sense? You just got shot. You know the cop has a loaded gun. You know he's trained to use it if his life is in danger. You also know you have no fucking gun on your person whatsoever. You just turned to face the cop leveling a gun at your chest, likely from behind the door of his cruiser. You're looking the fucking cop in the face. Why the fuck are you going to reach for a gun that doesn't exist, knowing full well that doing so is going to get a few extra rounds put directly into your chest? It takes sub-Forrest Gump levels of stupidity to even consider that, unless you just want to get shot. Ever take a second to actually think for yourself?
#44 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
It's impossible for me to read more than a sentence typed by a person as uneducated as you.
#45 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Seriously? I'm the only one basing my argument on the actual testimonies of the only two living people involved in the shooting. I don't see you posting anything useful
#46 - swagmonstah (12/27/2014) [-]
No, you're basing your bull shit on pieces of evidence.
It's not your fault though, you're doing it because your black. It's not your fault. You're not smart enough to form thoughts.
#77 - anonymous (12/27/2014) [-]
red thumbs means stop
#50 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, I'm as white as you are. Nice try, though
#49 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Ok, that was just downright fucking hilarious. No, seriously, I'm rolling, this time. My comment was written using testimony from Darren Wilson and Dorian Johnson, the only two living people that can be verified to have been on the scene. In my comment, I pointed out the logical fallacy of claiming someone was reaching for a gun that didn't exist. I stand by the cops if the officer's life is actually in danger. But when there's no discernible threat from the person standing 100 feet away, when said person doesn't even have a gun, how could you possibly think they're about to shoot you?
User avatar #81 - thegameujustlost (12/27/2014) [-]
Can you give source on this? The actual testimonies word by word. Sorry to bother you but i dont want to surf in the endless amount of shitstorm to look for it.
#5 - hislastson (12/27/2014) [-]
#6 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Facts be damned, huh?
User avatar #21 - gmarrox (12/27/2014) [-]
I guess so; you haven't posted any yet.
#32 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the Coroner's office declared Garner's death to be homicide. Alongside witness testimony on scene. That enough for you? Here's the story, in case you still think I'm not posting anything: www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Chokehold-Police-Custody-Cause-of-Death-Staten-Island-Medical-Examiner-269396151.html
User avatar #86 - MrDeadiron (12/27/2014) [-]
The witnesses testimonies conflicted with the corners report and many witness admitted they lied later.
User avatar #67 - thegameujustlost (12/27/2014) [-]
Well im not from the USA so I dont really know whats going on, but from my point of view you have a big problem with the police force, and this problem is not racism. Is about cops beeing poorly prepared and trained to interact with the civilian. Police brutality and easy trigger seem pretty wide spread in your country.

Also where does this white supremacy bullshit comes from? Aren't you allowed to be a cop if you're black? Aren't there pretty strong antydiscrimination laws? Aren't there lawsuits to be won if a public force or a private bussines discriminates against you based on the color of your skin?
#70 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
White supremacy comes in when racial profiling becomes a widespread issue across all 50 states thought I covered that one already . As for anti discrimination laws in the US, anybody with eyes should be able to see we're nowhere near where we need to be on this one.
User avatar #76 - thegameujustlost (12/27/2014) [-]
Why not? If im not wrong the employer has to prove his inocence when faced with a discrimination lawsuit. What else can you wish for? This is an actual quesiton.

Another faggot crying about racial profiling, you sound like the potheads and in my country that cry about uh cops are bastards because they stop and search me just because how I look and dress. Yet every single one of them smokes or deals weed and obviously everytime a police officer searchs them they found something.

Flash news buddy they use racial profiling because it fucking works. If 90% of people who look like a gangsta does gangsta shit maybe you can use this in your favor huh?

And yeah I repeat im not from USA but I doubt american police officers stop and search a suited up black guy.

#52 - notafunnyguy (12/27/2014) [-]
nobody gives a shit about garner.
we're talking about brown.
#87 - anonymous (12/27/2014) [-]
How are you gonna say noone gives a fuck about Garner, they literally choked the motherfucker out on tape and walked away.
#54 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Actually, the very first post, the post that started this entire conversation, the post that literally every person in this thread has been responding to since the start, was entirely about Garner. I should know, it's my fucking post
#55 - notafunnyguy (12/27/2014) [-]
dude, you suck at trolling. go back to tumblr. you're an amature. :^)
#58 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Seriously? I said very specifically at the start of this thread that I wasn't bringing up Mike Brown, I think you need to learn to read
#24 - Mawxter (12/27/2014) [-]
#3 - realitycheck (12/27/2014) [-]
It must be tragic to continually discover that your rhetoric in no way whatsoever matches the reality.
#4 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Eric Garner's death. All present witnesses claim excessive force was used. The official coroner's report ruled it a homicide. Video footage of the incident backs witness statements. Facts be damned, huh?
User avatar #7 - nazkillah (12/27/2014) [-]
Police brutality =/= white supremacy. Cops are holy in America. It doesn't matter if the victim's either white or black, the cop gets away with it.

Remember Thomas Kelly? A white homeless man who got beaten up, strangled, tazed and eventually killed by 3-6 cops. He was literally tortured for 10-15 minutes, crying for his father (the video footage can be found on youtube). Charges were pressed against three cops, of wich two are from Mexican descent. The charges were dropped and the story didn't get anywhere nearly as big as the shit that went down in Ferguson. White supremacy, eh?

Police brutality and the use of excessive force is something both sides deal with. Just because the victim is black shouldn't mean that the cop should be punished harder. Don't blame the race, blame the fucking government, blame the structure of American law, blame the system. The US with its political corectness, laws and racial issues can kiss my mulate ass, shit's rotten to the core I say.
#8 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except black people are legitimately targeted considerably more than white. There's a reason nearly every state has some formof a racial profiling investigation against police departments statewide
User avatar #10 - nazkillah (12/27/2014) [-]
That's true, stereotypes and social stigma's are resposible for things like this. The reason blacks are targeted more lies deeper than we think, it's a multiplicity of influences that manifest in our subconsciousness. Human behavior cannot truly be defined. Therefore, punishing one or more individuals for certain deeds won't make the difference and will only act like gasoline on a fire. Hitting/shooting before asking questions is unreasonable and is never justified. What I am trying to say is that all this shouldn't be a race issue. But unfortunatly lots of people who can express their opinion are unable to think with reason and only see what their eyes see and how they interpret it.
#12 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Yeah, people kinda tend to forget those little details. Not to mention, the fucking KKK came to the defense of Darren Wilson. When the KKK backs someone up, maybe it's time to consider the possibility
User avatar #13 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And black gangs like the Bloods and the Krips support Mike Brown. Gangs that actually kill people, not just a group of people that say bad words and make angry faces.
#14 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Because the KKK has such a history of non-violence, and totally didn't give public death threats against protestors in Ferguson, violent or non-violent. What do you expect? Black dude gets shot, cop has a history of known racism, of course black people are going to support him. The difference here, again, being, you know, KKK members making death threats vs. gang members just showing support Or did the bloods and krips make verbal threats against pro-cop protestors in Ferguson, that somehow weren't covered by any news outlet in the country? Just saying, I don't seem to remember anybody covering that side of the story, meanwhile actual threats of violence were being made by white supremacists
User avatar #16 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You don't hear about the bad things from the "Politically Correct" side, because it's not Politically Correct. There is no "right side of history". There's just a "popular side of history".
User avatar #15 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/death-threats-target-ex-ferguson-darren-wilson-article-1.2031577
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/darren-wilson-lawyer-death-threats-show-need-vigilance
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ferguson-shooting-darren-wilson-hiding-under-police-protection-because-death-threats-1477842

There have been three KKKs. The first one started as a neighbourhood watch program, similar to the Bloods or Krips. The second one emerged using KKK as a reason to scare blacks and lynch them after the emancipation proclamation. The third one is a political activist group.
The Krips and Bloods right now are similar to the second one (which has been disbanded for many years now).
Also, the KKK didn't make death threats. Death threats need to be worded so that the speaker says that they are going to commit the crime, wheras the KKK said that the violent protesters should be shot. That is not a death threat in any way. It's similar to saying "go kill yourself". It's completely legal. Meanwhile, saying "I am going to kill Darren WIlson" is in fact, illegal.
#17 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Everybody knows about the death threats from random people nationwide, I was asking when the two gangs in question publicly threatened pro-cop demonstrators. By the way, KKK leaders did indeed directly threaten violence against protestors in Ferguson, their threats included the non-violent. Don't ignore history, now, it's actually against you on this one
User avatar #20 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Oh, so apparently Black Gangs aren't the most violent groups of people in the US nowadays? Oh yeah that's right, that honour belongs to Mexican Cartels. (note: not the KKK).
You obviously only looked at the links I provided, and completely skipped over my text. You are bringing up points I have addressed.
For some new points, let's look at this.
The KKK is an organized group, thus it has a figurehead.
The Krips and Bloods are not organized groups, and thus do not have figureheads.

The KKK's threats were, as you said, non-violent, and not illegal.
Threats from Black thugs were very violent, and very illegal.

Also, Darren Wilson wasn't racist. There is only one connection to him being in a police force that was shut down due to the senior officer unfairly persecuting blacks. As it's always been, Correlation does not mean Causation.
#22 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
No, I didn't say non-violent. I said they directly threatened violence against the Ferguson protestors, including the non-violent ones. Threatening lethal force against non-violent protestors is totally illegal, in case you were wondering. On a side note. Out of those three links, none of them linked the man mentioned to any gang activity whatsoever from either group. Neither of them are even mentioned. So why are you trying to link the two, when no link exists?
User avatar #23 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
www.newsweek.com/ferguson-recruitment-boon-gangs-265884
www.youngcons.com/old-guy-calls-on-st-louis-crips-and-bloods-to-do-the-unthinkable-in-ferguson-protest-video/
Also, the KKK were not doing anything illegal. They said "The Ferguson protesters should be round up and shot". That is not a death threat at all. A death threat needs to be phrased in a way that shows that they are going to commit said crime. "I am going to kill Ferguson Protesters" is illegal. "Someone should kill Ferguson Protestors" is not. Same goes the other way.
#26 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
"Threatened lethal force to defend against people masquerading as peaceful protestors". Key words there being lethal, and peaceful. In other words, "We're going to defend ourselves against you, whether we're actually threatened or not". Even barring the inclusion of peaceful protestors, it's still illegal to go into the streets and start shooting people, unless they directly threaten your life. They threatened violence against protestors. That is illegal.

User avatar #28 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
They didn't say they would go out in the streets shooting innocents. They said they would shoot violent criminals who were pretending to be peaceful protesters. That's more of a Korean Shopkeepers protecting buisinesses sort of deal.
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
How would they know if they were criminals, if they were protesting peacefully? Or are you imagining the guy who just set fire to a business running into a crowd of people two blocks away to escape? "Masquerading as peaceful protestors" implies you're not performing any violent acts when KKK members shoot you dead. And again, unless you're part of the police, or if you're in the National Guard, specifically on mission in Ferguson, you do not have any right to shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to your life, or those around you. Now, if a rioter runs into a group of peaceful protestors to get away, who's to say that known racist KKK member isn't just going to open fire on the whole crowd, saying it was self defense? No, by their own words, it seriously sounded like they had every intention to shoot without making sure targets were actually guilty of anything. They directly threatened the lives of people at peaceful protests, that, sir, is fucking illegal
User avatar #35 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
If it was illegal, there would have been arrests made. There weren't.
You're interpretation of it doesn't mean it's the legal definition.
#37 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
People make threats like this every day and get away with it. Others don't get away with it at all. Just because some people don't get in trouble doesn't make it illegal. I smoke weed almost every day, and I've never once been arrested for it. Does that mean it's not illegal?
User avatar #107 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
There is no flaw in that. You aren't understanding my point.

If they had said "We are going to shoot people masquerading as peaceful protesters and everybody around them", that would be illegal, but it's not what they said. But anyways, way to take the coward's way out. I suppose waiting a week to reply was also an attempt at getting out of this conversation too, huh?
User avatar #105 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
The KKK didn't say they were going to shoot peaceful protesters. They are going to shoot people(rioters) who were masquerading as peaceful.
#106 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
And just like that, we're right back to the beginning, full circle, as it were. Though I'm pretty sure I pointed out the obvious flaw with their statement multiple times already, so obviously, you didn't get the point. Peace.
User avatar #103 - ecomp (01/05/2015) [-]
This was done a week ago.

Oh well, let's get back to it.

It does not matter if I defend a hate group. People are people, and that's it.
That's your only argument here. And it's just a feelsy argument, you're ignoring facts and laws, which is what actually matters.
#104 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
Never once did I ever defend the rioters. The people I defended were the ones exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful protest. Or do people not have an inalienable right to free and peaceful protest where you come from?
User avatar #101 - ecomp (12/28/2014) [-]
I don't give a fuck that I'm defending the KKK, you're defending Bloods and Crips, how does that make you any different? Rights are rights, and if you take them away from one person, why do they exist in the first place.
Bottom line is that they did nothing illegal, if you think they did, call the fucking cops and see how it turns out.
#102 - phoenixactual (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm not defending bloods and krips, I'm pointing out fairly obvious flaws in your posting. You're the only one defending a known hate group, here
User avatar #71 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
You can't give some people rights, but as soon as you don't like them, take away rights. Free Speech is Free Speech, no matter who says it. I don't care if you're Hitler, or if you're Ghandi, or if you're George from Accounting, there is no such thing as a thought crime.
Back on topic, the literal translation of that is that the KKK wants to kill terrorists who pretend to be peaceful protesters. There is no way that can be changed to say "The KKK are going to kill innocent protesters", unless an accident happens.
#74 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
By the way, again, you do realize you're defending some of the most hate filled people in American history, right?
#73 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Freedom of speech is a human right, true. But it doesn't excuse threatening to kill people you haven't even met. You can say you're going to kill someone, but that doesn't excuse you from the consequences of making threats against someone's life.
User avatar #66 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And we aren't talking about hypotheticals here. Their intent is to use lethal force to protect people from others who are masquerading as peaceful protesters. That is legal. Saying that they are going to do that is legal. Nowhere did they say that they are going to open-fire into a crowd, and nowhere did they say that they are going to kill peaceful protesters. Their intent is to use lethal force (not necessarily kill, either) in a legal matter. Legally protecting others, and legally protecting themselves.
#68 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
But that's not what they said their intent was, though. They said their intent was to "use lethal force against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protestors". As stated, which is why I constantly keep going back to the hypothetical, the hypothetical is the only situation in which this could possibly happen, going off their own words. Going off their own words, on the only scenario that could really possibly play out from this situation as described by them, this is illegal. they were specific enough that only one potential scenario could be devised from what they said. Can you really see any other way in which the KKK could possibly shoot someone pretending to be a protestor unless what I described played out? For that matter, you do realize you're backing the fucking Ku Klux Klan, right?
User avatar #62 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Where do you live? In America it is legal to kill someone who is taking your property, when defending yourself, or defending someone else's life. Again, they did not say that. They said they would shoot criminals breaking these laws, while pretending to be peaceful protesters.
#65 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
First off, depends where in America you live. Don't say stand your ground laws exist on a national level, they're state dictated. Now, they didn't say they were going to attack people who were destroying businesses, they said they were going to attack people acting as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, they're standing with actual peaceful protestors. Now, if you chase someone into a group of protestors, practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to free protest, you had better know exactly who you're chasing. Because one single stray bullet hits someone in that crowd other than the guy you were chasing, you're a fucking murderer. If you chase down someone and shoot them when they don't pose a threat to you, you're a fucking murderer. In order to be able to say you shot someone who was pretending to be a peaceful protestor, you have to have chased them from whatever it was you caught them doing that gave you probable cause to think they were a rioter. Which means you chased someone who was no longer a threat to you. Implying they were running away from you. If they're running for their life, they aren't a threat to you. If they aren't a threat to you, you can't fucking shoot them dead. The KKK posts implied they would do exactly this. Hence, they threatened to kill people who weren't actually threats to them. WHICH IS FUCKING ILLEGAL
User avatar #60 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
It's not illegal to say that you're going to kill people legally. It's legal to kill people in order to protect your property, or the live's of others, either from lethal or near-lethal injuries.
They said they would use lethal force against rioters who would do lethal harm to others. They said they would only use lethal force against those who commit these crimes, and masquerade as peaceful. Meaning that they will not target innocents. The hypothesized outcome doesn't matter. The legality of the intent is what matters.
#61 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Unless you're a cop, or a soldier, or you're shooting someone in self defense, there is no such thing as killing someone legally. Killing someone you think might commit violent crimes in the future is illegal. Saying you are going to kill someone implies you fully intend to kill somebody. Saying you're going to use lethal force before it's even required is illegal. WHAT THE KKK DID, IN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO USE LETHAL FORCE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. It's saying flat out that you're going to kill someone. They were saying they were going to kill people. Jesus fucking christ, dude, it's illegal. Get that through your fucking head
User avatar #57 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
And they did not say that they would.
#59 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Holy fuck, dude. They said there would be lethal force against anybody masquerading as peaceful protestors. As stated, if they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, there's no way to know, until they commit a crime, that they're pretending to be peaceful protestors. Implying that you're going to use lethal force against people masquerading as peaceful protestors suggests that you're going to kill any protestor you think is actually a rioter. Which, again, you couldn't possibly know, unless they broke out in a riot right before your very eyes. Ignoring of course the fact that saying you're going to use lethal force alone means you're going to take the law into your own hands, which is also illegal. Yes, saying you'll use lethal force is the exact same thing as saying you're going to kill someone. What the fuck do you think "lethal force" means? Do you honestly believe it's not illegal to go out and publicly announce you're going to kill people?
User avatar #53 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
"masquerading as" That means that they are not peaceful.
#56 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
If they're masquerading as peaceful protestors, then they are standing in a group with peaceful protestors. If they're pretending to be peaceful protestors, that generally means they're not rioting at the time, right? Otherwise there would be no doubt whatsoever that they weren't actually peaceful protestors? You can't kill someone just standing around because you think they might be a violent criminal waiting to strike, that tends to get you thrown in jail for the rest of your life
User avatar #48 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Yes, and these threats were not illegal. Maybe you should take a break from smoking and think for a second.
#51 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Since when is threatening lethal force against non-violence not a fucking crime? Are you on crack? Go ahead, publicly announce you're going to use lethal force against non-violent protestors, see where it gets you
User avatar #43 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Not the official organization. People who wear the uniform and start their own clubs in their neighbourhoods are not officially part of the KKK. The official organization does it's best to distance itself from backwater murders and burning down houses.
#47 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Right, except the threats came directly from the leadership of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. But no, they weren't endorsed by any KKK leadership, right?
User avatar #40 - ecomp (12/27/2014) [-]
Of course you do...
Anyways, the police watch the KKK like hawks, and the KKK takes plenty of precautions to avoid doing anything illegal, as they are under hawk-eyed supervision by the police. After all, the second organization of them was a group of murderers.
#42 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Hahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? The KKK constantly does illegal shit. It's the whole reason the country as a whole still sees them as dangerous. People generally don't consider you to be dangerous when you stay quiet for 40 years, or so, you know?
#11 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
See, here's the problem. The moment the departments in question started targeting blacks specifically, it became a race issue. People often ignore that very fact, while backing up racial profiling by cops, at times. In Michael Brown's case, the cop had a past history of investigation for racial profiling. He got fired for it before. Meanwhile, in NY, a city which has been under constant investigation for racial profiling, you have the Eric Garner case. In both cases, the departments in question were being investigated for profiling. In one, the cop had already been in trouble for it. How are these both not race issues, again?
#32 - Considering childbirth wasn't even a thing until after the &qu…  [+] (8 new replies) 12/27/2014 on Adam and Eve 0
User avatar #33 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
yet again, you are wrong. i assume you're referencing eve's punishment, how childbirth will be difficult just as adam would have to work hard to tend the fields. but that doesnt mean childbirth didnt exist. childbirth totally fucking existed. they didnt get to it before they left the garden, but it was absolutely a thing before sin. "be fruitful and multiply".
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
So I was mistaken. Still waiting to hear your take on the fact that we would be a species without knowledge of the world around us, you know, being totally obedient to god's commands and all
User avatar #35 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
before we get in too deep heh heh heh , i just want to say that there's questions i cant answer, and ill never be able to answer. ill do my best but im far from having all the answers.

the way i see it, when the bible says that they 'saw that they were naked', it took on a different context. sex is an amazing thing, created by god, and so are our bodies. there was nothing wrong or dirty about them until sin. like how when you're 5, you can take a bath with your sister and there's nothing wrong with that, but you couldn't do that when youre 17 or 23. different meanings.

when you say 'the world around us', are you referring to land outside of Eden?
#36 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
There's another thing I've always questioned, why would the very natural state of the human body be considered "wrong"? If our nakedness pissed off god so much that it would be considered wrong, why would we have been made that way in the first place? Clothing isn't natural, and nakedness, even as an adult, isn't purely sexual. The fact that families, with children, can be nudists, kinda proves this on it's own. I speak of the modern world. Part of what created it was the fact that we were left to our own devices. Without god just handing everything out to us in paradise, we had to make our own way, and the result was a world diverse in every way. Again, would you prefer a world of ignorance, spent in total obedience? Or one where the gift of free will can actually be utilized?
User avatar #37 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
see, it wasnt considered wrong until we sinned. it just wasnt thought about that way, by god or by adam and eve. excluding nudists, it's the same as sex, you can absolutely have it. god created it, and he said it was good. but you dont have sex out in the streets, you dont walk around naked with your family. sex and nakedness, in and of themselves, are not inherently evil or sinful, but it's the way in which you approach it. i think one reason god currently disapproves of public nudity or things of that sort is because he is our father, in a closer way than the person that conceived you. you dont just hang around with your dad balls-out. i dont have particularly strong feelings either way towards nudists, because it is indeed how we were made to be, but still very questionable post-sin.

it's difficult to know whether or not we would have such technology as we do today if we sin had not come into the world, but i think it would not be necessary. like how adam's curse was difficult labor, if there was no sin we wouldn't have to work hard, and we wouldn't need labor-saving devices. i think things like art and music and science we would absolutely still have, probably even more beautiful than we currently or ever have had them. but things like iphones or laptops, we probably wouldn't have or need. i think i would prefer eternity with god over iphones.

i think we need to make a distinction between total ignorance and what we were in the garden. we didnt know to cover our bodies because we didnt need to. we didnt have anything to be ignorant of, until we werent ignorant.
#38 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Outside of hostile environments, though, clothes serve very little use, aside from covering nudity. True, armor is good for combat, and in cold environments, a decent bit of fur always helps, but there really is no functional purpose outside of this. As for nudists, well, you can think what you want about them, but in their communities, there's very little to complain about. As someone who enjoys frequent visits to public nude beaches, because the water against bare skin feels much more natural, in a clothing optional environment, there's very little judgement. Outside the kids who were always taught that nudity was directly linked to sexuality, nobody is staring at each other. The social interaction is almost exactly the same as any other public interaction, minus clothing. Now, here's an interesting hypothetical for you, coming from a scientist. If industrial life, meant to make life easier post-sin, never happened, what becomes of global communications? What becomes of discovery, or space travel, or any of the good that has come from the modern world. To put it better, what good is godly bliss if there's no drive to discover the universe around us? If, after all, creation was put here primarily for us, what would become of the great explorers, those men and women who went boldly into the face of danger for the betterment of the human race? What becomes of those of us who would wish to explore? Better yet, what happens to the planet, when generation after generation of undying humanity floods the earth, and it's corners become overrun?
User avatar #39 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
I think it could go both ways, we could have built spaceships hundreds of years earlier and already pollutant-less-ly inhabited other planets, we also could have stayed firmly on the ground. i cant say for sure whether we would become as advanced as instant global communication, or even if we would need to. i also wonder about population, since dying was never part of the plan. i'm just not sure. i apologize for not being able to answer everything
#40 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Why would we have? No industrial complex, no past wars from which to base rocket design off of, no quest to understand the universe around us, how would we have the drive to explore new worlds, discover new things, and search for answers in the fabric of space itself, when all things were known by god, and we could just get whatever answers we wanted whenever we wanted them. Where would be the drive for discovery? Our space travel capability was a direct result of thousands of years of development of rockets for warfare, ignoring for a moment the horrors of said wars, the results helped better the human race in the long run. Without all that, we don't have nearly the technological capabilities. Without war, we wouldn't have had the need to further develop the very explosives that would eventually lead to modern rocketry. Every aspect of the space race was, for better or worse, fueled by human warfare in the past. Without all that, we'd still be earth bound, maybe with limited flight capability. The industrial revolution fueled the experimentation that led to the use of electricity in the home, what happens when we don't need the industrial revolution to make lives easier? The modern world as we know it, all of our technology, for better or worst, is a product of 10000 years of hardship or more, depending on where your beliefs stand Without all the hardship, what would have been the point? We'd be totally content with our existence, we wouldn't have need for anything of the modern world. And I see a world, where nobody has the drive to learn and explore, as a nightmare
#18 - Depending on your definition of doom. If she hadn't eaten the…  [+] (10 new replies) 12/27/2014 on Adam and Eve 0
User avatar #20 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
not sure where you got your information

but it's really wrong
#32 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Considering childbirth wasn't even a thing until after the "original sin", I think that's up for debate. What the fuck do I care, I don't even believe in about 99% of that book
User avatar #33 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
yet again, you are wrong. i assume you're referencing eve's punishment, how childbirth will be difficult just as adam would have to work hard to tend the fields. but that doesnt mean childbirth didnt exist. childbirth totally fucking existed. they didnt get to it before they left the garden, but it was absolutely a thing before sin. "be fruitful and multiply".
#34 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
So I was mistaken. Still waiting to hear your take on the fact that we would be a species without knowledge of the world around us, you know, being totally obedient to god's commands and all
User avatar #35 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
before we get in too deep heh heh heh , i just want to say that there's questions i cant answer, and ill never be able to answer. ill do my best but im far from having all the answers.

the way i see it, when the bible says that they 'saw that they were naked', it took on a different context. sex is an amazing thing, created by god, and so are our bodies. there was nothing wrong or dirty about them until sin. like how when you're 5, you can take a bath with your sister and there's nothing wrong with that, but you couldn't do that when youre 17 or 23. different meanings.

when you say 'the world around us', are you referring to land outside of Eden?
#36 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
There's another thing I've always questioned, why would the very natural state of the human body be considered "wrong"? If our nakedness pissed off god so much that it would be considered wrong, why would we have been made that way in the first place? Clothing isn't natural, and nakedness, even as an adult, isn't purely sexual. The fact that families, with children, can be nudists, kinda proves this on it's own. I speak of the modern world. Part of what created it was the fact that we were left to our own devices. Without god just handing everything out to us in paradise, we had to make our own way, and the result was a world diverse in every way. Again, would you prefer a world of ignorance, spent in total obedience? Or one where the gift of free will can actually be utilized?
User avatar #37 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
see, it wasnt considered wrong until we sinned. it just wasnt thought about that way, by god or by adam and eve. excluding nudists, it's the same as sex, you can absolutely have it. god created it, and he said it was good. but you dont have sex out in the streets, you dont walk around naked with your family. sex and nakedness, in and of themselves, are not inherently evil or sinful, but it's the way in which you approach it. i think one reason god currently disapproves of public nudity or things of that sort is because he is our father, in a closer way than the person that conceived you. you dont just hang around with your dad balls-out. i dont have particularly strong feelings either way towards nudists, because it is indeed how we were made to be, but still very questionable post-sin.

it's difficult to know whether or not we would have such technology as we do today if we sin had not come into the world, but i think it would not be necessary. like how adam's curse was difficult labor, if there was no sin we wouldn't have to work hard, and we wouldn't need labor-saving devices. i think things like art and music and science we would absolutely still have, probably even more beautiful than we currently or ever have had them. but things like iphones or laptops, we probably wouldn't have or need. i think i would prefer eternity with god over iphones.

i think we need to make a distinction between total ignorance and what we were in the garden. we didnt know to cover our bodies because we didnt need to. we didnt have anything to be ignorant of, until we werent ignorant.
#38 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Outside of hostile environments, though, clothes serve very little use, aside from covering nudity. True, armor is good for combat, and in cold environments, a decent bit of fur always helps, but there really is no functional purpose outside of this. As for nudists, well, you can think what you want about them, but in their communities, there's very little to complain about. As someone who enjoys frequent visits to public nude beaches, because the water against bare skin feels much more natural, in a clothing optional environment, there's very little judgement. Outside the kids who were always taught that nudity was directly linked to sexuality, nobody is staring at each other. The social interaction is almost exactly the same as any other public interaction, minus clothing. Now, here's an interesting hypothetical for you, coming from a scientist. If industrial life, meant to make life easier post-sin, never happened, what becomes of global communications? What becomes of discovery, or space travel, or any of the good that has come from the modern world. To put it better, what good is godly bliss if there's no drive to discover the universe around us? If, after all, creation was put here primarily for us, what would become of the great explorers, those men and women who went boldly into the face of danger for the betterment of the human race? What becomes of those of us who would wish to explore? Better yet, what happens to the planet, when generation after generation of undying humanity floods the earth, and it's corners become overrun?
User avatar #39 - dorfdorfdorf (12/27/2014) [-]
I think it could go both ways, we could have built spaceships hundreds of years earlier and already pollutant-less-ly inhabited other planets, we also could have stayed firmly on the ground. i cant say for sure whether we would become as advanced as instant global communication, or even if we would need to. i also wonder about population, since dying was never part of the plan. i'm just not sure. i apologize for not being able to answer everything
#40 - phoenixactual (12/27/2014) [-]
Why would we have? No industrial complex, no past wars from which to base rocket design off of, no quest to understand the universe around us, how would we have the drive to explore new worlds, discover new things, and search for answers in the fabric of space itself, when all things were known by god, and we could just get whatever answers we wanted whenever we wanted them. Where would be the drive for discovery? Our space travel capability was a direct result of thousands of years of development of rockets for warfare, ignoring for a moment the horrors of said wars, the results helped better the human race in the long run. Without all that, we don't have nearly the technological capabilities. Without war, we wouldn't have had the need to further develop the very explosives that would eventually lead to modern rocketry. Every aspect of the space race was, for better or worse, fueled by human warfare in the past. Without all that, we'd still be earth bound, maybe with limited flight capability. The industrial revolution fueled the experimentation that led to the use of electricity in the home, what happens when we don't need the industrial revolution to make lives easier? The modern world as we know it, all of our technology, for better or worst, is a product of 10000 years of hardship or more, depending on where your beliefs stand Without all the hardship, what would have been the point? We'd be totally content with our existence, we wouldn't have need for anything of the modern world. And I see a world, where nobody has the drive to learn and explore, as a nightmare
#210 - Considering you shouldn't have to make up a reason because you… 12/27/2014 on there's too much shit +1
#12 - Cats only see us as big, dumb cats, apparently. They bring us…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/26/2014 on We built this city We built... +1
#15 - trustust (12/28/2014) [-]
That makes sense
#11 - He doesn't hate you, he just tolerates your existence 12/26/2014 on We built this city We built... +2
#14 - Again, why the **** should somebody have to fear …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/22/2014 on Victim Shaming 0
#15 - venomousvalentine (12/22/2014) [-]
Because fear is what keeps human beings safe. Nothing is 100% safe. The world is dangerous, and EVERYONE should fear for SOMETHING. We will never get rid of rapists or murderers or thieves so its best to prepare a society to deal with them.

Yeah you're not gonna be tried for a crime committed on you like the criminal was. Blame for something NEVER lies on one person. If someone has something bad happen to them like that, my condolences. That never should have happened. But it did and if they REALLY didn't want it to happen they can be careful enough to prevent it in most cases. Thats not a 100% thing obviously, sometimes you do everything you can and shit still goes wrong, and that sucks. But IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO BE PREPARED.

The world isn't a parade. There are bad people and sick people everywhere. You SHOULD fear them.

Also on your second point, its always right to consider the point of others. Innocent until proven guilty. In todays society a woman can just claim rape and get away with it because usually if someone questions that she's not been actually raped they'll all scream discrimination. Fair trials are necessary. If he raped someone you can be damn sure he's going away for a while. If he didn't, and he still gets locked up because they just take some stupid persons word for it then that's just a bad thing don't you think?
#12 - Right, because a girl shouldn't be able to go to a bar without…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/22/2014 on Victim Shaming 0
#13 - venomousvalentine (12/22/2014) [-]
Here we go with assumptions.
No just have some goddamn common sense. Be careful and cautious at all times.
The world is fucking dangerous. There isn't always someone there to protect you so you should try to protect yourself a little bit.
Carry a gun, carry pepper spray, take self defense classes, stay near someone you trust, don't go to shady places, avoid shady people, don't be stupid.

Like goddamn it's not a hard concept.
#14 - phoenixactual (12/22/2014) [-]
Again, why the fuck should somebody have to fear for their fucking life every time they leave the house? This isn't ISIS controlled northern Iraq, here, we don't live in a country where people are waiting behind every dark corner just to get a jump on you. Wanna know what victim shaming does? It lessens the severity of the crime, and often allows the actual criminal to get off scott free in the end. Nothing whatsoever is learned, and the rapist gets back on the streets, ready to strike again. Don't believe me? Look at the schools across the country currently in scandals for mismanaging rape cases. Some have actually punished the victim more than the rapist himself, because she/he made the school look bad.
#15 - venomousvalentine (12/22/2014) [-]
Because fear is what keeps human beings safe. Nothing is 100% safe. The world is dangerous, and EVERYONE should fear for SOMETHING. We will never get rid of rapists or murderers or thieves so its best to prepare a society to deal with them.

Yeah you're not gonna be tried for a crime committed on you like the criminal was. Blame for something NEVER lies on one person. If someone has something bad happen to them like that, my condolences. That never should have happened. But it did and if they REALLY didn't want it to happen they can be careful enough to prevent it in most cases. Thats not a 100% thing obviously, sometimes you do everything you can and shit still goes wrong, and that sucks. But IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO BE PREPARED.

The world isn't a parade. There are bad people and sick people everywhere. You SHOULD fear them.

Also on your second point, its always right to consider the point of others. Innocent until proven guilty. In todays society a woman can just claim rape and get away with it because usually if someone questions that she's not been actually raped they'll all scream discrimination. Fair trials are necessary. If he raped someone you can be damn sure he's going away for a while. If he didn't, and he still gets locked up because they just take some stupid persons word for it then that's just a bad thing don't you think?
#10215316 - When I have those moments, I end up eating the exact same thin… 12/22/2014 on SFW Random Board~ +1
#46 - Right, and you're using the fact that they won't, because, you… 12/22/2014 on Admin 0
#10215259 - Anybody else really like orchestral music? I find it so sooth… 12/22/2014 on SFW Random Board~ +1
#44 - Right, except it happens to pretty much anybody who stands aga… 12/22/2014 on Admin 0
#10215007 - ******* delicious, though I'm in Vermont  [+] (2 new replies) 12/22/2014 on SFW Random Board~ +1
#10215298 - blackholedragon (12/22/2014) [-]
yeah, one of two times this week where I had one of those moments, where you take your first bite, then stare off into space and slightly drop your fork, as fireworks go off somewhere in the world.
Now two times a week is pretty rare, considering food wise it's usually the same old same old.
The other instance was this morning, it was caused by Denny's gingerbread french toast if you can believe that.
#10215316 - phoenixactual (12/22/2014) [-]
When I have those moments, I end up eating the exact same thing every night for 3 weeks straight, before I get sick of it.
#42 - It also gets results in the form of totally innocent people ge… 12/22/2014 on Admin 0
#25 - Except about 90% of that is assorted smoking stuff, from 3 peo… 12/22/2014 on CAH a little too real right... +1
#39 - So that means the entire country should be slaughtered to take… 12/22/2014 on Admin -1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 610 / Total items point value: 860

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#14 - greedtheavaricious ONLINE (07/28/2014) [-]
You are not really considering suicide, are you?
User avatar #13 - redwrench ONLINE (07/28/2014) [-]
Queen-Don't Try Suicide
User avatar #12 - psychadelicace (06/25/2014) [-]
soooooooo...what did you post that got you banned?
User avatar #11 - bruinslover (06/24/2014) [-]
never knew you like to post shemales....subscribing.
User avatar #7 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Don't do it tho. Don't kill yourself. Don't even think about it.
#8 to #7 - phoenixactual (02/19/2014) [-]
No plans to
User avatar #9 to #8 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Ok, good to hear.
User avatar #6 - funnymidget (02/08/2014) [-]
:Hey, I seen you havin a Bad day. Don't be feeling down fr losin your job man. It's all gon' be good. Currently, I'm going through something that I have no Idea how to handle. I'm not able to see me son, and I've bee going thru so much stress with the drama. But lets not make this about me. You have a probably beautiful girlfriend, who loves you more than anything, and though you may have autsim, you strike me as a good guy. Trust me, suicide isn't worth it. It's just a Permant Solution to a temporary problem. I had a friend about 3 years ago kill himself because people bullied him for the way her looked. He was one of my only friends, and I was just devastated. Trust me, you taking your own life will hurt more people than it will help. For the sake of those who love you, and for your own sake, please, Just keep your mindset on the positive things in life. Though there may not be many, just focus on the few that are. It'll all be worth it in theend when you have a gril at your right, a child on yourleft, and you can call yourself a family.
User avatar #5 - mayormilkman (11/28/2013) [-]
butts
#1 - anonymous (07/15/2013) [-]
Hows the transition going?
#2 to #1 - phoenixactual (07/16/2013) [-]
it's going fairly well, 6 months in, somewhat surprising changes for this short of time
 Friends (0)