|
|
| Re: Seriously? (1257184) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Seriously? |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Jan 15 09:05:43 2015, in response to Re: Seriously?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Wed Jan 14 04:44:14 2015. 1. Exactly.So you're admitting I'm right now? Good. 2. First off, your deductions are not logical, NOR are they correct. Look, just because you can't understand simple logic doesn't make it wrong. 3. The links that you post do not prove your point at ALL. In fact, it's quite the contrary. See (2). 4. Link all you want. Indeed I will. I'm quite happy to prove you wrong. You're my little bitch so if it makes you feel better that you want to be riding my nutsack, so be it. Why is every gay man on SubChat fantasising about fucking me? Yes, I'm handsome and all, but I'm also not gay. Our orientations are not compatible. Go find someone else before I ask Larry to ban you for sexual harassment. Of course I like women (an alien concept to you) You have just demonstrated that liking women is an alien concept to you. Even if you're bisexual rather than gay, that is— since you seem to think of women as objects, I doubt anyone would make the argument that your feelings towards women are at all positive. And like I said, your links will not prove anything as usual. Or in other words, your response is and continues to be: "NUH-UH!" 5. Yeah. I kinda figured that you wouldn't know what a chick was, besides the literal meaning. Actually, I was giving you one chance to prove that you weren't a sexist as well as a racist. You failed. Congratulations. You are a despicable failure of a human. Your trophy is through that door marked: "Totally not a euthanasia room!" 6. I mean what I write. No hidden meanings. Only YOU think there are. Necessary logical consequences are not hidden meanings. If you respond to a shooting with a black shooter by calling him a "savage" but respond to a shooting with a black victim by calling the victim a savage, then you are a racist. By definition. That's just what the word means. Don't tell me you're pulling an Olog and I need to ask you to define "racist" now. 7. Are you kidding me? Michael Brown was a strong-arm robber who had just done just that before Wilson drove up upon him. That's a lie. The fact that you make up lies about black murder victims to justify their murderers further proves that you're a racist. If you wish to reassert the truth of this claim, make sure it's accompanied by proof, probably using one of those link thingies you hate so much. And, of course, in true criminal fashion, he had to mouth off and fight Wilson as well. Another lie. The fact that you tell these lies further proves that you're a racist. Tamir Rice shouldn't have been pointing the airsoft pistol at people, thus prompting people to call 911 and then the police dispatcher having to give out the call as someone with a gun pointing it at people. Tamir making a hand gesture toward his waist sealed his fate. More lies— I already posted a video disproving these. The fact that you think it was justified for the police to shoot a young child further proves that you're a racist— unless you want to point to all the white kids shot by the cops that you think are equally justified. I never discussed Oscar Grant, so why should I do it now, because you told me to? Or in other words, you're glad he was killed but you're worried the facts are a bit too unambiguous for you to lie through. Come on, we already know you're a racist— do you think Oscar Grant should have been killed? Yes or no? Nigga please! And now you're using racial slurs. Congratulations. You are a racist. This fact is now beyond the slightest doubt. It's been fun; don't let the door hit you as you slink off the stage. Where did I discuss white killers with black victims? Um, this very paragraph? Michael Brown? Tamir Rice? Oscar Grant? I discussed police (race irrelevant) having to utilize DPF against assailants (race irrelevant). Except that when the killers are black, you call them "savages" and when the killers are white, you defend them. You see how this works? Jim Crow voting laws never mentioned race— they said that people, race irrelevant, had to meet a set of criteria in order to vote, none of which were "being white." You see how this works? Or are you planning to claim that Jim Fucking Crow wasn't racist? And what about the killing from 2013 of the guy who thankfully got mowed down before he caould shoot a cop? Which killing are you referring to? 8. Yes, black people are criminals. Not all of them. White people are criminals. Not all of them. Asian people are criminals. Not all of them. Hispanic people are criminals. Not all of them. So why are black people disproportionately likely to be in prison? Why are black people disproportionately likely to be killed by the police? BTW, YOU calling me a racist has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on my life. No, but you won't be able to find a job if you act like this in public. 9. For Christ's Sake look it up. It's your argument. I pointed out that you have yet to claim that the police were unjustified in shooting a black person— if you want to offer a counterexample, that's your responsibility; I have no intention of defending a despicable fuckstain like you. |
|
|
|