To my fellow American computer techs

[britechguy]

. . . and actually THINK!

Considering the source . . .

 

[sapphirescales]

Considering the source . . .

This is why I don't want to share a country with liberals. I wonder how fast your opinion would change if these animals burned down your business. I only hope that one day you do experience the real world rather than simply virtual-signal in your echo chamber to all your friends on social media. Then maybe you'd understand why we have borders and laws. Those borders and laws protect you and your way of life, but you don't even realize it and you won't until it's gone.

 

[phaZed]

This is why I don't want to share a country with liberals. I wonder how fast your opinion would change if these animals burned down your business. I only hope that one day you do experience the real world rather than simply virtual-signal in your echo chamber to all your friends on social media. Then maybe you'd understand why we have borders and laws. Those borders and laws protect you and your way of life, but you don't even realize it and you won't until it's gone. Maybe then you'll pull your head out of your a$$ and see the world as it really is rather than the way you want it to be.

It's funny to see you take a hostile and ad-hominem attack approach - that is a logical fallacy - you're automatically wrong. Sorry.

It's funny to see you virtue-signal, yourself, while telling others not to virtue signal. How ridiculous!

The laws apply to everyone. They are made by the people, not the police.

Prove it. Prove to me that laws are made by the people... What was the last law YOU voted on? You're not paying attention to how government works. The people elect representatives and those corrupt representatives make the laws... then those corrupt representatives pass the laws. Most of the time, laws are made/passed by corporations and lobbyists and the wealthy 10%, not people.

Princeton University (You can take it up with them, and I believe them over you because they have 20yrs of data) found that:
Bills that have 0% public support would have a 30% likelihood of passing.
Bills that have 100% public support would have a 30% likelihood of passing.

"The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy"

The top 10% wealthy Americans have up to a 61% likelihood of having their supported bills passed.
The top 10% wealthy Americans have a 100% chance of killing bills they do not support.

In fact, Average American citizens only have a 0.03% chance of affecting the vote on a bill based on their preferences.

Princeton Study (20 years of data):
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

 

[JoeTech]

I want to start this by saying, "This post is not about politics".

I am feeling really sad about what is happening in your country right now.

In general I see people being hurt on the news and places being burnt down.

I want you to know, I care. Please look after each other.

In conclusion, I believe love conquers hate. Be a light in this darkness. No matter what.

Regards,

Thank you as well. Unfortunately I knew this thread would spiral out of control into politics and will be locked soon.

 

[Kitten Kong]

Guys, whilst I am extremely moderate and liberal in relating to what goes on in the forums here.

Please do not start bashing each other because of any differences in political ideas.

Keep the thread on track, and not causing offense.

I don't have any problems in keeping to the rules and if required taking actions against ANY member.

Thank you.

 

[Metanis]

Just another thread telling me that I'm not welcome here anymore because I believe differently than the conventional evening newscast agenda.

Prior to joining this site I would not have believed that computer techs were so close-minded, bigoted, and conventionally rigid in their thinking.

But there's always those guys (and gals) who think their poo doesn't stink.

 

[sapphirescales]

It's funny to see you take a hostile and ad-hominem attack approach - that is a logical fallacy - you're automatically wrong. Sorry.

I presented my points and asked a simple question, and he just ignores the question and throws insults in my face because there's no way to logically counter my argument. There is NOTHING "unjust" about a law that says you can't block traffic when protesting. The people that are standing off to the side not obstructing traffic, threatening anyone, or looting and breaking windows are doing just fine. I fully expect him to ignore my post again and just call me a racist or whatever, because that's the standard reaction of a liberal when you ask them a question that has an answer that doesn't align with their delusional worldview.

Prove it. Prove to me that laws are made by the people... What was the last law YOU voted on?

The only law I'm talking about is the law about not impeding traffic. That law has probably been around since the 1800's. I know there's corruption. Everyone knows there's corruption. But that has nothing to do with the fact that these protesters are breaking the law and deserve everything they get because of it.

Be a normal, peaceful human being and protest legally and you won't have any problems. If an officer tells you to do something, you f*cking do it unless you want them to force you to do it. It's not rocket science, but entitled little snowflakes seem to think they're above the law just because they're angry.

Basic laws like this have been around forever and are there for the common good. They weren't created by some rich corporation or whatever conspiracy theorist entity. You either obey laws and live in a civilized society or you don't and face the consequences for acting like that.

 

[sapphirescales]

Just another thread telling me that I'm not welcome here anymore because I believe differently than the conventional evening newscast agenda.

Prior to joining this site I would not have believed that computer techs were so close-minded, bigoted, and conventionally rigid in their thinking.

But there's always those guys (and gals) who think their poo doesn't stink.

I say split the country down the middle. Let the liberals and conservatives run their own affairs and see which system collapses first (ALL systems collapse, it's just a matter of time). Either that or another civil war, but I'm hoping we can just come to an agreement here and not resort to violence. I will never agree with liberals. Their policies have destroyed the country for years and they think doubling down on failed systems is the answer. Has the country gotten BETTER in the last 15 years or worse? Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

[britechguy]

If you want me to concede the point that looting and impeding traffic are not legal and are, in fact, generally counterproductive to the goals of legitimate protest, then OK.

But it's a fact that large group protests often, as a side effect, end up impeding traffic even if not intended to do so. But those using that as an intentional tactic tend only to alienate potential allies.

Looters are thieves, not protesters, just as rioters are not protesters.

All of the above having been said, I can even forgive the intentional impeding of traffic as a protest tactic in certain circumstances, but that traffic is generally not of the "folks trying to get to work or to get the things they need" type.

 

[sapphirescales]

But it's a fact that large group protests often, as a side effect, end up impeding traffic even if not intended to do so.

And if it's unintentional that's fine. That's why the police tell you to move and give you ample time to do so. But if you refuse then you're gonna get smacked.

I can even forgive the intentional impeding of traffic as a protest tactic in certain circumstances, but that traffic is generally not of the "folks trying to get to work or to get the things they need" type.

Unfortunately just like the economy, the roads are NOT designed to just stop. Even 20 minutes of stopped traffic can gridlock entire cities. This can cause loss of life. You can't just impede traffic because you want to protest. You need to do your best to follow the laws.

I've protested before in huge groups of people. Thankfully everyone was following the laws and there were no incidents. Plenty of black people were at the protests. Nobody blocked traffic for any period of time and it was great.

Black people aren't being attacked by police at these protests because they're black. They're impeding traffic or refusing to comply with an officers orders and just happen to be black. White people are being attacked too. Protesters are being attacked because of their actions (or lack of action), not because of their skin color.

Looters are thieves, not protesters, just as rioters are not protesters.

Exactly. There's a difference. No one should be defending the people who are burning down buildings and stealing from stores. Those people need to be arrested and the people burning down buildings need to be charged with attempted murder because a lot of these buildings are occupied.

I 100% support protesters that are peaceful and don't impede traffic or break any laws. It's a constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Like I said, I have protested before on several occasions. But these people that are shooting videos of people who are refusing to comply with police orders and are getting attacked because of it are doing nothing but fanning the flames.

We don't have a problem with police killing black people. It's such a teeny tiny percentage of the population (0.00000713% - and that includes the ones that deserved to be shot - i.e. criminals trying to kill cops). People that think that "police brutality" is a problem are the same as the retards that think all blacks are criminals just because they commit more homicides than whites. They DO, but it's still such a teeny tiny percentage of the population that it might as well be a statistical anomaly (0.0002% of blacks are murderers compared to 0.00003% of whites). Technically if you meet a random black person on the street, they're nearly 7x as likely to be a murderer than a random white person, but the actual chances of them being a murderer is still 0.0002% so it's stupid to think they're going to murder you just because they're black. You might as well worry about a meteor falling from the sky and landing on your head.

 

[britechguy]

I shall simply say that decades of academic research regarding police brutality and minorities, replicated again and again, does not draw the same conclusions you do.

I know which source I will believe. I also believe my own eyes, and being an "old white guy" I am only too well aware of the privilege that accrues to an accident of my birth.

 

[sapphirescales]

I shall simply say that decades of academic research regarding police brutality and minorities, replicated again and again, does not draw the same conclusions you do.

I know which source I will believe. I also believe my own eyes, and being an "old white guy" I am only too well aware of the privilege that accrues to an accident of my birth.

It's natural for police to be a little biased against blacks because they deal with criminals all day long. Like I said, black criminals are an extremely small percentage of the overall black population, but they're the overwhelming majority of the criminal population. This is why police education is so important. They can't let their jobs color their assumptions of innocent people (no pun intended).

There's also the fact that black people tend to resist arrest much more frequently. If you resist arrest, the cop is going to do whatever it takes to put you under arrest and you're probably going to get hurt. Why do blacks resist arrest more frequently? Many reasons, not the least of which is many of them are ex-cons and they don't want to go back to prison.

It's not my place to judge the cop that killed Floyd. The courts will decide. But I do know that Floyd resisted arrest and if he hadn't he'd likely still be alive today. I don't believe the cop killed him intentionally, but again, it's not for me to judge. Floyd was an ex-con that didn't want to go back to prison, was high on drugs, and had underlying health issues. That combined with potential negligence or murderous intent on the cop's part led to his death. Had the cop been more competent, or Floyd not high on drugs, or Floyd not had underlying health issues, or Floyd not resisted arrest, this might not have happened. It was the perfect storm.

 

[Briggsy]

Nonsense. There was no negligence by the cop.

The full video is on YouTube for all to see.

1. Floyd clearly said he could not breathe twice - the cop is then clearly seen pressing harder on the guys neck.

2. When Floyd is unconscious, the cop keeps his knee on Floyds neck for a further 3 minutes - whilst looking down at him, knowing full well the guy is unconscious. Members of the public are also shouting that hes not breathing. At that point, he should have taken his knee of his neck and made efforts to bring him round. He didn't.

3. One cop is heard saying "theres no pulse - I think we should turn him on his side now" - yet Chauvin says "no, we're keeping him like this".


Chauvin has also had 18 complaints made against him in the past for racism. You've not mentioned that though because, as usual, you only mention what suits your agenda and conveniently miss out anything that shows that you're talking nonsense.

 

[frase]

Regardless of race or crime committed. An officer should never put the offender in a position that would block airways. Handcuff them, if is a higher offense tie their ankles as well. Though never constrict airways.

 

[sapphirescales]

Nonsense. There was no negligence by the cop.

The full video is on YouTube for all to see.

1. Floyd clearly said he could not breathe twice - the cop is then clearly seen pressing harder on the guys neck.

2. When Floyd is unconscious, the cop keeps his knee on Floyds neck for a further 3 minutes - whilst looking down at him, knowing full well the guy is unconscious. Members of the public are also shouting that hes not breathing. At that point, he should have taken his knee of his neck and made efforts to bring him round. He didn't.

3. One cop is heard saying "theres no pulse - I think we should turn him on his side now" - yet Chauvin says "no, we're keeping him like this".


Chauvin has also had 18 complaints made against him in the past for racism. You've not mentioned that though because, as usual, you only mention what suits your agenda and conveniently miss out anything that shows that you're talking nonsense.

If he's found guilty then I'll accept he's guilty. If he's found innocent then I'll accept he's innocent. You can't get all the facts from a video, and cops always have complaints of racism if they work in an area with blacks. It takes time for justice to be served no matter how obvious someone's guilt is. That's how the system works. It's designed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. You can't do that hastily. Murder requires intent (otherwise it's just manslaughter). We don't know what the cop's intent was, we can only make a guess based on what we see in the video. We'll see what his defense is when he goes to trial. The fact that suspects are innocent until proven guilty is one of the founding principles of our justice system.

 

[Briggsy]

Regardless of race or crime committed. An officer should never put the offender in a position that would block airways. Handcuff them, if is a higher offense tie their ankles as well. Though never constrict airways.

And if you do, you get to work on reviving them straight away - not keep your knee on the neck for a further 3 minutes to ensure that not only is he dead, but revival chances are virtually taken away.

 

[Sky-Knight]

And if you do, you get to work on reviving them straight away - not keep your knee on the neck for a further 3 minutes to ensure that not only is he dead, but revival chances are virtually taken away.

And if you do this, you make sure it's done over $20.

That turned out was actually real, and the cops were called for nothing... so there's that too.

 

[Briggsy]

If he's found guilty then I'll accept he's guilty. If he's found innocent then I'll accept he's innocent. You can't get all the facts from a video, and cops always have complaints of racism if they work in an area with blacks. It takes time for justice to be served no matter how obvious someone's guilt is. That's how the system works. It's designed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. You can't do that hastily. Murder requires intent (otherwise it's just manslaughter). We don't know what the cop's intent was, we can only make a guess based on what we see in the video. We'll see what his defense is when he goes to trial. The fact that suspects are innocent until proven guilty is one of the founding principles of our justice system.

It's strange that you'll let the court decide whether the cop is guilty or not and "you can't get all the facts from a video".

Yet in your previous post, you've said you "know" that Floyd was "high on drugs" and "resisting arrest" - based on that same video and internet hearsay.

 

[Briggsy]

And if you do this, you make sure it's done over $20.

That turned out was actually real, and the cops were called for nothing... so there's that too.

Dont go posting facts on this post. You'll upset Sapphirescales. It doesn't fit his agenda.

 

[Mr. Ingram's Computer Repair & Shoppe]

Bringing this back on topic. Thank you. My shoppe and I are currently safe, and business is going well. Had a couple neighbors from South Africa, they moved here because of all the murder/race war. Hope you are safe.

EDIT: hah South Australia....Well I don't know much about your area. None the less, hope your good