LogFAQs > #945216591

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Diversity consultant BLM activist says Amy Barret is racist for adopting blacks
adjl 09/29/20 7:54:59 AM #41:	Wanded posted... In some of those videos they may indeed be peaceful protesters, in some they may have done something bad before the video started which we don't get to see. We get to see a video in which they are not currently being violent, yet are being savagely assaulted. Whether or not they did something bad prior to the video doesn't change the fact that they are not being violent while police are assaulting them. That makes the violence from the police unnecessary, which is the entire problem. It's very simple: Police should use only whatever violence is necessary to stop further violence or criminal activity from occurring. It is not necessary to beat, gas, pepper spray, taze, or shoot at somebody who is currently standing harmlessly and doing nothing to resist arrest. Prior criminal behaviour does not change the fact that such people can be arrested without such violence, which means that employing violence in arresting them is simply a matter of cops being angry, and that should never happen. Wanded posted... this attack wouldn't and couldn't exist had she not adopted black children hence, she got called racist for adopting black children That's a rather tenuous grasp of cause and effect you've got there. Might as well say that she got called racist for becoming a judge (since none of this would have come up if she weren't in the running for the SC), if you're taking such a superficial approach to the matter, and obviously that's pretty meaningless. The actual comment is that she's racist independent of her adoption choices (although I should perhaps point out that preferentially adopting black children is - axiomatically - racial discrimination, so there's a case for calling that choice anti-white racism if you change your mind on whether or not you want to defend her), then going on to explain that her adoption choices don't necessarily indicate otherwise. Her decision to adopt black children isn't presented as support for the claim that she's racist, it's being brought up and addressed as a potential rebuttal. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:945216591] in Diversity ... [t:79005432]...</cite> <quote>Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>In some of those videos they may indeed be peaceful protesters, in some they may have done something bad before the video started which we don't get to see.</quote> We get to see a video in which they are not currently being violent, yet are being savagely assaulted. Whether or not they did something bad prior to the video doesn't change the fact that they are not being violent while police are assaulting them. That makes the violence from the police unnecessary, which is the entire problem. It's very simple: Police should use only whatever violence is necessary to stop further violence or criminal activity from occurring. It is not necessary to beat, gas, pepper spray, taze, or shoot at somebody who is currently standing harmlessly and doing nothing to resist arrest. Prior criminal behaviour does not change the fact that such people can be arrested without such violence, which means that employing violence in arresting them is simply a matter of cops being angry, and that should never happen. Wanded posted... </cite> <quote>this attack wouldn't and couldn't exist had she not adopted black children hence, she got called racist for adopting black children</quote> That's a rather tenuous grasp of cause and effect you've got there. Might as well say that she got called racist for becoming a judge (since none of this would have come up if she weren't in the running for the SC), if you're taking such a superficial approach to the matter, and obviously that's pretty meaningless. The actual comment is that she's racist independent of her adoption choices (although I should perhaps point out that preferentially adopting black children is - axiomatically - racial discrimination, so there's a case for calling that choice anti-white racism if you change your mind on whether or not you want to defend her), then going on to explain that her adoption choices don't necessarily indicate otherwise. Her decision to adopt black children isn't presented as support for the claim that she's racist, it's being brought up and addressed as a potential rebuttal. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1