Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[The Conez Imperium]

Huh this is rather depressing. Just as I was thinking there was going to be some roit, this pops up...

[Willamette Valley]

Why do they cannot at least once a peacefull protest without starting looting the city?

Probably because people get understandably fed up when nothing changes

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have no problem with the peaceful demonstrations, but rioting and looting is not OK.

7-11 and McDonald's didn't kill this guy. What's the point of taking it out on them? If they stormed a police station or something, that would at least have some logic to it. Actually, that would make a big difference in my attitude toward the violence, if it was directly targeted at the police rather than just running around committing random crimes.

What peaceful demonstrations?

So targeted violence on cops is okay in your book. Good to know. I believe there was a guy in New York who shared your views, and used a couple NYPD officers to express them.

You either didn't read what she said or you are not understanding what she is saying.

She never said violence was okay, she said protesting was okay in the manner of peaceful demonstrations.

[Ecaria]

My biggest ones have been communism and religion I suppose. I have more positive views about religion and no longer accept communism. I'm more along the lines of a socialist now.

Not much of a change, is it. As for religion, well, you certainly don't show it whenever the discussion comes about, treating theists like garbage.

Meh.

"Meh" if you want to change opinions like you originally said, then "meh" sufficient.

I'm not focusing on the 90% itself. I was facetiously wondering how much time you have actually spent going through my posts because you're making claims that you can't possibly know unless you've studied my posts in depth. Which is quite disturbing.

I haven't spent more time than when I have argued with you(more than just now) and when you argued with others in big threads. Of course I didn't comb through every one of your posts, but the theme of you treating others like shit has been in every argument I have seen you commit.

But the topics I've contributed the most to are probably the ones involving religion, socialism and capitalism, race and abortion.

I have seen you argue on all, religion, race, and abortion are specifically where you treat the opposition like shit when it is unwarranted. We even had a debate on abortion once - Meowland(or whatever his name is) actually argued with me with civility. You did not. Who do you think contributed to me becoming pro-choice?

No its pretty much the exact same. Except I obviously don't "type" in caps by yelling.

No, it's treating their argument like shit. If you attack a straw man I'll point that out.

That's not lacking reading comprehension. Lacking reading comprehension, when you insult someone else, is like calling them illiterate. It is an insult. I can't believe I have to fucking cite this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
"Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. An individual's ability to comprehend text is influenced by their traits and skills"

Once again, I've never ever said that I've single handedly caused someone to change their mind. No one has on this site. Come on now I JUST went over this.

No, they most certainly have. ASB and Meowland both single-handedly changed my opinion, and I have changed others. Tell yourself this all you want.

This isn't important. It has nothing to do with the thread topic. It would have been best you actually have ended it because I don't care one but about what you think about me.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have responded when I ended it, eh?

Look, this is an Internet forum. We don't know each other in real life. We will never meet each other. This makes utterly no difference in your lives. Stop treating this as more than what it is.

So then you admit that you just want to be an asshole and don't want to change? For fucks sake, do you enjoy getting angry about someone's posts? You know I come here to change my opinion on things, and if that doesn't happen, to keep my mind sharp. Quite clearly, someone with tens of thousands of posts, probably puts in a little more weight into this forum than the average person.

[Aethrys]

What peaceful demonstrations?

So targeted violence on cops is okay in your book. Good to know. I believe there was a guy in New York who shared your views, and used a couple NYPD officers to express them.

You either didn't read what she said or you are not understanding what she is saying.

She never said violence was okay, she said protesting was okay in the manner of peaceful demonstrations.

I have no problem with the peaceful demonstrations, but rioting and looting is not OK.

7-11 and McDonald's didn't kill this guy. What's the point of taking it out on them? If they stormed a police station or something, that would at least have some logic to it. Actually, that would make a big difference in my attitude toward the violence, if it was directly targeted at the police rather than just running around committing random crimes.

Uh, no. Explicitly stated support for targeted acts of violence against police officers. Saying "Oh well I don't support violence, unless it's against those damn cops" does not make you anti-violence. Very much the opposite, in fact.

[Ecaria]

What did the LA riots actually achieve, considering the exact same brutality is present today, in the LAPD, decades later.

Not really. We actually had a quite controversial shooting recently, and while the black community wasn't thrilled with it, there was enough trust built up so that we didn't see riots, only demonstrations.

Seriously, you are talking to a white guy who lives between Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park in an almost entirely black neighborhood, and has lived here for a few years. I know whereof I speak.

What I am saying is that the LAPD still commit the same crimes.

Rodney King didn't change much, I'm sorry, it might have made the LAPD stop for a little bit but the community not being angry enough to riot again doesn't really prove the LAPD stopped.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You either didn't read what she said or you are not understanding what she is saying.

She never said violence was okay, she said protesting was okay in the manner of peaceful demonstrations.

I have no problem with the peaceful demonstrations, but rioting and looting is not OK.

7-11 and McDonald's didn't kill this guy. What's the point of taking it out on them? If they stormed a police station or something, that would at least have some logic to it. Actually, that would make a big difference in my attitude toward the violence, if it was directly targeted at the police rather than just running around committing random crimes.

Uh, no. Explicitly stated support for targeted acts of violence against police officers. Saying "Oh well I don't support violence, unless it's against those damn cops" does not make you anti-violence. Very much the opposite, in fact.

Well, it would have an effect and it would make logical sense. It's like "oh it's people against cops, it's still wrong, but I can see why they're doing it".

That's not the same as giving support. Why don't you ask first what would be her attitude before jumping to conclusions? Oh, that's right, because then it wouldn't be NSG, now would it?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not really. We actually had a quite controversial shooting recently, and while the black community wasn't thrilled with it, there was enough trust built up so that we didn't see riots, only demonstrations.

Seriously, you are talking to a white guy who lives between Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park in an almost entirely black neighborhood, and has lived here for a few years. I know whereof I speak.

What I am saying is that the LAPD still commit the same crimes.

Rodney King didn't change much, I'm sorry, it might have made the LAPD stop for a little bit but the community not being angry enough to riot again doesn't really prove the LAPD stopped.

Actually, it does. Between this, the link posted by Mavropen, and my personal experience living in the middle of the community, I'm not sure why you would say that. Yes, there are problems still, but they're dealt with more effectively, and the LAPD is significantly more responsive to the needs of the community. As you seem to be someone who can be convinced by evidence, I would think that actual comments by former critics of the LAPD praising the institutional changes that they've made would be at least somewhat persuasive. I mean, yes, we still have controversial shootings, and instances of abuse, but these things are taken far more seriously now, and not swept under the rug.

I mean, for fuck's sake, during the May Day brouhaha a few years ago, the LAPD investigated misconduct charges against their own officers. In most cities, that would be a joke, followed shortly by demands for an independent investigation. The LAPD, however, fired, demoted, or reassigned nearly everyone involved in the melee, including top brass, and willingly paid out $13 million in claims.

What exactly would constitute proof for you?

[Imperial City-States]

So first off.


This has gone well beyond 'demonstrations' this has turned into rioting. And honestly i hope the Police Department beats the ever living shit out of said rioters. They're destroying both Public and Personal property and most of them aren't rioting for the whole "Justice for Freddie" but simply because they want free TV's, Computer's and in general to cause chaos.

I hope the Police Department uses everything in their power to restore order to the chaos. Baton's, Taser's, Dogs, CS Gas. Anything that's needed in order to put a stop to this arrogance. When the Maryland National Guard has to be called forth to 'restore order' it has gone way to far.

This isn't Freedom of Speech, or Assembly. Those are done peacefully. This is, for a lack of better terms, an act of insurrection. I personally don't agree with how the Police handled the Freddie chap, however. The Rioter's took it to an all new level. If you want to show your anger about a subject. Actually Demonstrate. Don't destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.


I swear these idiots are the same people that made Ferguson boil over.

[Aethrys]

Uh, no. Explicitly stated support for targeted acts of violence against police officers. Saying "Oh well I don't support violence, unless it's against those damn cops" does not make you anti-violence. Very much the opposite, in fact.

Well, it would have an effect and it would make logical sense. It's like "oh it's people against cops, it's still wrong, but I can see why they're doing it".

That's not the same as giving support. Why don't you ask first what would be her attitude before jumping to conclusions? Oh, that's right, because then it wouldn't be NSG, now would it?

Well I can see where you stand on the subject. Why should I ask for her, or your, "attitude" on the issue of attacking police when you've both taken the opportunity to take a stand on the issue? If your post is constructed in such a way that it appears to provide support to a stance you do not actually hold, then that's on you and failures of your writing mechanics, surely? Should I not take people at their own words? "Oh well that's absolutely terrible, in fact I'm sure they must've actually meant something completely different." Yeah, no. Not happening. I say what I believe, as part of a civil discussion, and make it very clear where I stand on an issue I've decided to engage in debate on. I fully expect others to be capable of the same.

But yeah, pointing out that assaulting cops, torching buildings and looting stores is a questionable thing to support is obviously jumping to conclusions. You're right, we MUST be on NSG.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So first off.


This has gone well beyond 'demonstrations' this has turned into rioting. And honestly i hope the Police Department beats the ever living shit out of said rioters. They're destroying both Public and Personal property and most of them aren't rioting for the whole "Justice for Freddie" but simply because they want free TV's, Computer's and in general to cause chaos.

So you know these rioters personally?

I hope the Police Department uses everything in their power. Baton's, Taser's, Dogs, CS Gas. Anything that's needed in order to put a stop to this arrogance. When the Maryland National Guard has to be called forth to 'restore order' it has gone way to far.

You do realize that all of this started because use of force went too far, right?

This isn't Freedom of Speech, or Assembly. Those are done peacefully. This is, for a lack of better terms, an act of insurrection. I personally don't agree with how the Police handled the Freddie chap, however. The Rioter's took it to an all new level. If you want to show your anger about a subject. Actually Demonstrate. Don't destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.

It's an act of anger and despair, and I have no doubt it's an act of opportunity to grab a couple of things for a few people. That doesn't make the complaints less legitimate, but it does provide a convenient if utterly bullshit excuse for people to ignore the actual problems that started this.

I swear these idiots are the same people that made Ferguson boil over.

By "idiots", I assume you mean "abusive police officers", and you're right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, it would have an effect and it would make logical sense. It's like "oh it's people against cops, it's still wrong, but I can see why they're doing it".

That's not the same as giving support. Why don't you ask first what would be her attitude before jumping to conclusions? Oh, that's right, because then it wouldn't be NSG, now would it?

Well I can see where you stand on the subject. Why should I ask for her, or your, "attitude" on the issue of attacking police when you've both taken the opportunity to take a stand on the issue? If your post is constructed in such a way that it appears to provide support to a stance you do not actually hold, then that's on you and failures of your writing mechanics, surely? Should I not take people at their own words? "Oh well that's absolutely terrible, in fact I'm sure they actually meant something completely different. Yeah, no. Not happening. I say what I believe, as part of a civil discussion, and make it very clear where I stand on an issue I've decided to engage in debate on. I fully expect others to be capable of the same.

But yeah, pointing out that assaulting cops, torching buildings and looting stores is a questionable thing to support is obviously jumping to conclusions. You're right, we MUST be on NSG.

Then you are obviously not reading my posts the way I am trying to present them and rather through your own biases. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.

I never said I supported either one. I just said she probably thinks it would make sense given the circumstances and I said why, because it would both make an effect and it would make logical sense under the circumstances, I never said anything about supporting or condoning such an action, just that it would make sense; I also said you are jumping to conclusions based on her post, which I do not see why would you think she would be supportive of it or not if she hasn't said such a thing.

But, if you want my opinion, here it is: no, I do not support the riots, and I would not support violence towards the police department. I would support peaceful demonstrations though and things that'd make an effect. However, after peaceful demonstrations fail I wouldn't be surprised if violence follows.

Here's a tip: stop putting words in my fucking mouth, then read what is being said and don't jump to conclusions over what isn't being said, and if you are unsure about something, ask. Then maybe you will learn something about discussing an issue. But, then again, what am I expecting in NSG, where important issues are discussed at a level of a 15 year old.

[Mavorpen]

My biggest ones have been communism and religion I suppose. I have more positive views about religion and no longer accept communism. I'm more along the lines of a socialist now.

Not much of a change, is it.

No, it's a substantial one. The ideological differences between communism and socialism are substantial.

As for religion, well, you certainly don't show it whenever the discussion comes about, treating theists like garbage.

Again, I treat shitty theist ARGUMENTS like garbage while I've also defended theism against bad arguments made by atheists as well. Again, this is a matter of selective retention because things you don't like stand out to you more and thus you remember them easier.

Meh.

"Meh" if you want to change opinions like you originally said, then "meh" sufficient.

Changing opinions isn't my goal.

I'm not focusing on the 90% itself. I was facetiously wondering how much time you have actually spent going through my posts because you're making claims that you can't possibly know unless you've studied my posts in depth. Which is quite disturbing.

I haven't spent more time than when I have argued with you(more than just now) and when you argued with others in big threads. Of course I didn't comb through every one of your posts, but the theme of you treating others like shit has been in every argument I have seen you commit.

Again I can continue to wait for evidence of this if you like. Though this really has no place on this thread.

But the topics I've contributed the most to are probably the ones involving religion, socialism and capitalism, race and abortion.

I have seen you argue on all, religion, race, and abortion are specifically where you treat the opposition like shit when it is unwarranted. We even had a debate on abortion once - Meowland(or whatever his name is) actually argued with me with civility. You did not. Who do you think contributed to me becoming pro-choice?

Again, I have no clue who you are, so I don't care about your anecdotal experiences. But this really does reveal a lot. You have emotional baggage that's leading you to draw conclusions that you can't actually substantiate. It's quite sad actually.

No its pretty much the exact same. Except I obviously don't "type" in caps by yelling.

No, it's treating their argument like shit. If you attack a straw man I'll point that out.

That's not lacking reading comprehension. Lacking reading comprehension, when you insult someone else, is like calling them illiterate. It is an insult. I can't believe I have to fucking cite this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
"Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. An individual's ability to comprehend text is influenced by their traits and skills"

You didn't have to cite it. I know what reading comprehension is. Which is why I facetiously bring it up when someone erects a straw man.

Once again, I've never ever said that I've single handedly caused someone to change their mind. No one has on this site. Come on now I JUST went over this.

No, they most certainly have. ASB and Meowland both single-handedly changed my opinion, and I have changed others.

Oh great more unsubstantiated claims.

Tell yourself this all you want.

I will indeed continue telling the truth.

This isn't important. It has nothing to do with the thread topic. It would have been best you actually have ended it because I don't care one but about what you think about me.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have responded when I ended it, eh?

You do realize that no one is forcing you to respond, correct?

It's just that when you say that you're ending something one assumes that you are actually, you know, going to leave.

Look, this is an Internet forum. We don't know each other in real life. We will never meet each other. This makes utterly no difference in your lives. Stop treating this as more than what it is.

So then you admit that you just want to be an asshole and don't want to change?

No, I admit that you haven't demonstrated this personal problem you have had any merit.

For fucks sake, do you enjoy getting angry about someone's posts?

Not really. It rarely happens.

You know I come here to change my opinion on things, and if that doesn't happen, to keep my mind sharp. Quite clearly, someone with tens of thousands of posts, probably puts in a little more weight into this forum than the average person.

Sorry but I'm not the one expressing personal baggage and trying to pretend like I know the ins and outs of a person based off their anecdotal experiences on an Internet forum with them. I don't put any "weight" into this forum. It's a hobby. It's a side thing I do occasionally when I'm bored. And you're treating this way more seriously than it actually is.

[Imperial City-States]

So first off.


This has gone well beyond 'demonstrations' this has turned into rioting. And honestly i hope the Police Department beats the ever living shit out of said rioters. They're destroying both Public and Personal property and most of them aren't rioting for the whole "Justice for Freddie" but simply because they want free TV's, Computer's and in general to cause chaos.

So you know these rioters personally?

You seriously can't say that the majority of rioter's are rioting because they believe it'll bring about change.

I hope the Police Department uses everything in their power. Baton's, Taser's, Dogs, CS Gas. Anything that's needed in order to put a stop to this arrogance. When the Maryland National Guard has to be called forth to 'restore order' it has gone way to far.

You do realize that all of this started because use of force went too far, right?

There is a difference between gross misconduct and stopping further destruction due to a riot. These people are committing criminal actions and are destroying and stealing people's property on a wide scale. This needs to be ended, Now.

This isn't Freedom of Speech, or Assembly. Those are done peacefully. This is, for a lack of better terms, an act of insurrection. I personally don't agree with how the Police handled the Freddie chap, however. The Rioter's took it to an all new level. If you want to show your anger about a subject. Actually Demonstrate. Don't destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property.

It's an act of anger and despair, and I have no doubt it's an act of opportunity to grab a couple of things for a few people. That doesn't make the complaints less legitimate, but it does provide a convenient if utterly bullshit excuse for people to ignore the actual problems that started this.


It's an act of stupidity and ignorance. If anything the rioter's are doing nothing but help the Police Department. As time goes on due to these moron's rioting evidence gets older and more circumstantial, witnesses start having more foggy memories. In reality they're actually helping the Police Department.

I swear these idiots are the same people that made Ferguson boil over.

By "idiots", I assume you mean "abusive police officers", and you're right.

You assume incorrectly, No, i'm referring to the moron's who think that rioting is going to help their case at all.

[Mavorpen]

Not really. We actually had a quite controversial shooting recently, and while the black community wasn't thrilled with it, there was enough trust built up so that we didn't see riots, only demonstrations.

Seriously, you are talking to a white guy who lives between Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park in an almost entirely black neighborhood, and has lived here for a few years. I know whereof I speak.

What I am saying is that the LAPD still commit the same crimes.

Rodney King didn't change much, I'm sorry, it might have made the LAPD stop for a little bit but the community not being angry enough to riot again doesn't really prove the LAPD stopped.

So any actual evidence for this? Because both me and Yumyumsuppertime provided sources for our arguments and he has personal experience.

It's blatantly clear with a bit of research on the topic that the situation in the area is vastly better than previously. Of course there are bumps in the road. The world isn't perfect. The difference is that they're actually addressed though. They don't express blatant conflict of interest in the form of giving the police automatically the benefit of the doubt to the point where it isn't "innocent until proven guilty," but instead "just plain innocent because we can't look bad." The community trusts them. That says a lot more than you claim that it does.

[Aethrys]

Well I can see where you stand on the subject. Why should I ask for her, or your, "attitude" on the issue of attacking police when you've both taken the opportunity to take a stand on the issue? If your post is constructed in such a way that it appears to provide support to a stance you do not actually hold, then that's on you and failures of your writing mechanics, surely? Should I not take people at their own words? "Oh well that's absolutely terrible, in fact I'm sure they actually meant something completely different. Yeah, no. Not happening. I say what I believe, as part of a civil discussion, and make it very clear where I stand on an issue I've decided to engage in debate on. I fully expect others to be capable of the same.

But yeah, pointing out that assaulting cops, torching buildings and looting stores is a questionable thing to support is obviously jumping to conclusions. You're right, we MUST be on NSG.

Then you are obviously not reading my posts the way I am trying to present them and rather through your own biases. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.

I never said I supported either one. I just said she probably thinks it would make sense given the circumstances. Here's a tip: stop putting words in my fucking mouth, then read what is being said and don't jump to conclusions over what isn't being said. Then maybe you will learn something about discussing an issue.

There's really no need to get upset here. You expressed your own opinion by stating that attacking cops would "make logical sense". Logical decisions are widely considered (myself included) to be correct decisions. There's no bias involved here, I'm merely working with the data I'm being given. There is literally no other way I can learn about your, or others opinions on a subject aside from what you, and they, choose to share. I've added nothing to your statements, all that's there is what you've put forth. Everything else is simply a response to the information you've chosen to provide. The only words in your mouth are your own, as are the only ones in mine, my own. As I've not addressed anything not being said, your advice appears to be of questionable value, but I will take it into consideration.

As you've offered your own, I will reciprocate. When engaging in a discussion, it's generally better to be courteous. I can understand that emotions may sometimes get the better of individuals at times, but it should be avoided as much as possible, otherwise one just manages to portray themselves as a hothead, whether deliberately or not.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ignore.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ignore this too. Formatting issues that I wasn't able to fix.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then you are obviously not reading my posts the way I am trying to present them and rather through your own biases. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.

I never said I supported either one. I just said she probably thinks it would make sense given the circumstances. Here's a tip: stop putting words in my fucking mouth, then read what is being said and don't jump to conclusions over what isn't being said. Then maybe you will learn something about discussing an issue.

There's really no need to get upset here. You expressed your own opinion by stating that attacking cops would "make logical sense". Logical decisions are widely considered (myself included) to be correct decisions. There's no bias involved here, I'm merely working with the data I'm being given. There is literally no other way I can learn about your, or others opinions on a subject aside from what you, and they, choose to share. I've added nothing to your statements, all that's there is what you've put forth. Everything else is simply a response to the information you've chosen to provide. The only words in your mouth are your own, as are the only ones in mine, my own. As I've not addressed anything not being said, your advice appears to be of questionable value, but I will take it into consideration.

As you've offered your own, I will reciprocate. When engaging in a discussion, it's generally better to be courteous. I can understand that emotions may sometimes get the better of individuals at times, but it should be avoided as much as possible, otherwise one just manages to portray themselves as a hothead, whether deliberately or not.

Logical =/= right. Many things follow their own logical conclusion into things that are wrong or right and they make sense why they happen if you follow the trail, but right or wrong isn't the same as logical or illogical.

Killing someone who trespasses your yard here in Texas is logical because you are defending your property, doesn't mean it's right to kill someone, but it happens. Cheating on your partner is wrong, but yet there is a logical sequence of events that happen that leads a person to cheat on someone. Logic and morals are not tied in together.

I do not condone violence to the cops or the riots going on right now; however, it would make logical sense given the circumstances.

What I think is right or not doesn't derive itself from what is logical to me or not. So, again, stop putting words in my mouth, and ask if you are unsure of what is being said.

[Ecaria]

What I am saying is that the LAPD still commit the same crimes.

Rodney King didn't change much, I'm sorry, it might have made the LAPD stop for a little bit but the community not being angry enough to riot again doesn't really prove the LAPD stopped.

So any actual evidence for this? Because both me and Yumyumsuppertime provided sources for our arguments and he has personal experience.

It's blatantly clear with a bit of research on the topic that the situation in the area is vastly better than previously. Of course there are bumps in the road. The world isn't perfect. The difference is that they're actually addressed though. They don't express blatant conflict of interest in the form of giving the police automatically the benefit of the doubt to the point where it isn't "innocent until proven guilty," but instead "just plain innocent because we can't look bad." The community trusts them. That says a lot more than you claim that it does.

Didit?

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

[Ecaria]

Not much of a change, is it.

No, it's a substantial one. The ideological differences between communism and socialism are substantial.

As for religion, well, you certainly don't show it whenever the discussion comes about, treating theists like garbage.

Again, I treat shitty theist ARGUMENTS like garbage while I've also defended theism against bad arguments made by atheists as well. Again, this is a matter of selective retention because things you don't like stand out to you more and thus you remember them easier.

"Meh" if you want to change opinions like you originally said, then "meh" sufficient.

Changing opinions isn't my goal.

I haven't spent more time than when I have argued with you(more than just now) and when you argued with others in big threads. Of course I didn't comb through every one of your posts, but the theme of you treating others like shit has been in every argument I have seen you commit.

Again I can continue to wait for evidence of this if you like. Though this really has no place on this thread.

I have seen you argue on all, religion, race, and abortion are specifically where you treat the opposition like shit when it is unwarranted. We even had a debate on abortion once - Meowland(or whatever his name is) actually argued with me with civility. You did not. Who do you think contributed to me becoming pro-choice?

Again, I have no clue who you are, so I don't care about your anecdotal experiences. But this really does reveal a lot. You have emotional baggage that's leading you to draw conclusions that you can't actually substantiate. It's quite sad actually.

That's not lacking reading comprehension. Lacking reading comprehension, when you insult someone else, is like calling them illiterate. It is an insult. I can't believe I have to fucking cite this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
"Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. An individual's ability to comprehend text is influenced by their traits and skills"

You didn't have to cite it. I know what reading comprehension is. Which is why I facetiously bring it up when someone erects a straw man.

No, they most certainly have. ASB and Meowland both single-handedly changed my opinion, and I have changed others.

Oh great more unsubstantiated claims.

Tell yourself this all you want.

I will indeed continue telling the truth.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have responded when I ended it, eh?

You do realize that no one is forcing you to respond, correct?

It's just that when you say that you're ending something one assumes that you are actually, you know, going to leave.

So then you admit that you just want to be an asshole and don't want to change?

No, I admit that you haven't demonstrated this personal problem you have had any merit.

For fucks sake, do you enjoy getting angry about someone's posts?

Not really. It rarely happens.

You know I come here to change my opinion on things, and if that doesn't happen, to keep my mind sharp. Quite clearly, someone with tens of thousands of posts, probably puts in a little more weight into this forum than the average person.

Sorry but I'm not the one expressing personal baggage and trying to pretend like I know the ins and outs of a person based off their anecdotal experiences on an Internet forum with them. I don't put any "weight" into this forum. It's a hobby. It's a side thing I do occasionally when I'm bored. And you're treating this way more seriously than it actually is.

I'm sorry. It's late. I've wasted too much time. You're a lost cause. It is better to just put you the ignore list and pretend you don't exist. It will be abetter forum that way. Goodbye.

[Mavorpen]

So any actual evidence for this? Because both me and Yumyumsuppertime provided sources for our arguments and he has personal experience.

It's blatantly clear with a bit of research on the topic that the situation in the area is vastly better than previously. Of course there are bumps in the road. The world isn't perfect. The difference is that they're actually addressed though. They don't express blatant conflict of interest in the form of giving the police automatically the benefit of the doubt to the point where it isn't "innocent until proven guilty," but instead "just plain innocent because we can't look bad." The community trusts them. That says a lot more than you claim that it does.

Didit?

Yes. What is an event that occurred during the 1990s and a link that doesn't back up your claim that things haven't gotten better have to do with the topic?

To be explicit here, I'm asking you for actual research backing your argument up. Anything from published books, journal entries, community statements, etc would be nice. A wiki link listing incidents in itself doesn't measure actual trends.

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

I'm still waiting on an actual source that it hasn't gotten better.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

No I haven't. You haven't learned anything after literally making shit up about what I believe for pages now, have you?

[Mavorpen]

No, it's a substantial one. The ideological differences between communism and socialism are substantial.

Again, I treat shitty theist ARGUMENTS like garbage while I've also defended theism against bad arguments made by atheists as well. Again, this is a matter of selective retention because things you don't like stand out to you more and thus you remember them easier.

Changing opinions isn't my goal.

Again I can continue to wait for evidence of this if you like. Though this really has no place on this thread.

Again, I have no clue who you are, so I don't care about your anecdotal experiences. But this really does reveal a lot. You have emotional baggage that's leading you to draw conclusions that you can't actually substantiate. It's quite sad actually.

You didn't have to cite it. I know what reading comprehension is. Which is why I facetiously bring it up when someone erects a straw man.

Oh great more unsubstantiated claims.

I will indeed continue telling the truth.

You do realize that no one is forcing you to respond, correct?

It's just that when you say that you're ending something one assumes that you are actually, you know, going to leave.

No, I admit that you haven't demonstrated this personal problem you have had any merit.

Not really. It rarely happens.

Sorry but I'm not the one expressing personal baggage and trying to pretend like I know the ins and outs of a person based off their anecdotal experiences on an Internet forum with them. I don't put any "weight" into this forum. It's a hobby. It's a side thing I do occasionally when I'm bored. And you're treating this way more seriously than it actually is.

I'm sorry. It's late. I've wasted too much time. You're a lost cause. It is better to just put you the ignore list and pretend you don't exist. It will be abetter forum that way. Goodbye.

That is indeed the healthy route to go rather than holding a silly personal grudge based off of something on the internet and taking it so seriously.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You seriously can't say that the majority of rioter's are rioting because they believe it'll bring about change.

I'm not the one making assumptions about their motivations.

There is a difference between gross misconduct and stopping further destruction due to a riot. These people are committing criminal actions and are destroying and stealing people's property on a wide scale. This needs to be ended, Now.

It will be stopped. Violence will probably be involved. Hopefully it will be done calmly, professionally, and minimally. Then rebuilding has to happen, and that's only going to work if people stop thinking of each other as problems to be solved.

It's an act of stupidity and ignorance. If anything the rioter's are doing nothing but help the Police Department. As time goes on due to these moron's rioting evidence gets older and more circumstantial, witnesses start having more foggy memories. In reality they're actually helping the Police Department.

Not really. See my next point.

You assume incorrectly, No, i'm referring to the moron's who think that rioting is going to help their case at all.

As I pointed out a few times upthread:

The 60s riots in Detroit and Watts focused attention on the plight of the inner cities up North, and caused racism to stop being seen as a Southern issue.

The Stonewall Riots caused the Gay Rights movement to turn from a near nonentity into a force to be reckoned with.

The 92 riots in Los Angeles focused attention on police abuse and a rigged justice system.

The Ferguson riots drew the attention of the Justice Department, and resulted in a report that led to the resignations or dismissal of many city and police officials.

[Norstal]

So any actual evidence for this? Because both me and Yumyumsuppertime provided sources for our arguments and he has personal experience.

It's blatantly clear with a bit of research on the topic that the situation in the area is vastly better than previously. Of course there are bumps in the road. The world isn't perfect. The difference is that they're actually addressed though. They don't express blatant conflict of interest in the form of giving the police automatically the benefit of the doubt to the point where it isn't "innocent until proven guilty," but instead "just plain innocent because we can't look bad." The community trusts them. That says a lot more than you claim that it does.

Didit?

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

He's not supporting rioting. He's saying the LAPD got better after the riots. And he has ample evidence to support it. You don't however, considering the evidence you gave are the main cause of the 1990s riot and that no new riots have occurred.

I mean seriously, if there's no new riots occurred after a riot, that is definition of "better."