The debate "All lives matter no just a black person or a white person. ALL LIVES MATTER" was started by
an anonymous person on
May 7, 2016, 11:47 pm.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
TZW posted 7 arguments, MrShine posted 8 arguments, Nemiroff posted 14 arguments to the agreers part.
TZW posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
mayank883, amrit981, MrShine, Anjali, Nemiroff, Stydia, Rogersgirl75, Sumerian, confident, enro, Julia_lee, moneybagboyz123, SwaggerPoptart, Dev, Zuhayr and 12 visitors agree.
dalton7532, Claystation, JakobBoghora disagree.
but as I said, the riots were primarily in premovement furgeuson, and the movement repeatedly discouraged the actions when they took place during its early days.
I don't see that as a valid criticism. it is misinformation.
and even then, these riots over murder are far more understandable then the riots over hockey games.
That's the point shine. It doesn't matter skin color, or occupation, or insert whatever, but all lives matter.
Let me elaborate in a bit, I will be busy, but for quick clarification, I had no issue with your ID stance I was saying for the same reason I could not go with this movement, it is done improperly not checking what they are moving for, and not any more organized then that first incident noted.
Forgive me, I'm multitasking on this, the number issue argued both ways had me confused. I admit this. Unfortunately, numbers was about as much substance as provided, so I can't say much.
I do not allow for riots whatsoever, so pointing at another group rioting and saying otherwise isn't right. Rioting over a hockey game is retarded, and I advise action on those as well.
the riots happened after the first case in furgeuson before the black lives matter movement was organized and almost never again. this claim that the black lives matter is just inciting riots is false as there have been almost no riots aside from the premovement furgeuson ones.
and I wasn't throwing numbers around, that was tzw
and my stance on Id laws was as long as ids are accessible for all, I don't care. what do you find wrong with that stance? please respond in that thread.
also, black people are not the only people that riot. so please, don't hold double standards.
Lacking appropriate reasoning in regards to numbers, saying it's too high is on police brutality itself, nothing more. Differentiating brutality from racial motivation is an issue which is constantly being neglected in this debate, maybe you can't make it. Concepts of seeking justice is found in an adversarial court, which we can only argue on a case by case basis, and holding these true, the movement is flawed even if the end goal is just. The movement does not keep itself in check, keep throwing those numbers while the principle argument of abusing a means or reason to riot, loot, or harm others is neglected. With your stance on voter id's not being done right so you can't support it, I am of similar mind here.
It's funny you only bring up the I can't debate when I point out something dumb you say.
tzw. you really need to work on your debate basics and staying on topic. I'm done beating my head against the wall trying to debate you. I'll just wait for ANYONE else to respond.
1200 people were killed unjustly while unarmed in everyday police interactions?
or are you again citing things that are irrelevant to the conversation?
total police killing in every context is not being disputed here.
You act like every police office is untouchable when many MOST (READ) are relieved from duty after a case proves them guilty. 1200 people were killed last year by police officers, figured you didn't know after you started with the opinions.
So justice = prosecution? Or in this case, blood? Like I said, we can argue on individual cases, but as a whole we cannot do, because numbers of individuals will fight the law, do you believe only the innocent do it? Can you provide, out of that number, the unjustly treated? Arguing on the decades that pass don't make my argument flawed, it only proves that your measure of history rather than point to progress, as well as not addressing why a bandwagon is a bad idea, is willfully ignoring that you don't know where justice can be found. If I know that a movement does not provide justice, should I join this easy to abuse movement? Why do we ignore the civil unrest and dismiss it as an unheard voice, rather than address it as an abuse of Justice?
Very valid reasons not to pick this movement.
what 1200 cases were you taking about?
the key part of the media comment was that they were talking about these cases before it was declared the officers would not be dismissed, as opposed to your lie that they only mentioned the ones that werent.
"the fact that *MOST* of the police officers in the cases related this movement were not dismissed or even prosecuted is a fact"
most =/= all
when did I switch to disagree though? lol
The media also covered all 1200+ cases? That's a fact? I said read the latter. that means the latest part of your statement. The only correct one was the one I said you didn't have to read.
All of them were dismissed? You can say that was a fact?
the fact that they have been complaining about this for decades is not an opinion.
the fact that their complaints were dismissed for those reasons is also not an opinion.
the fact that most of the police officers in the cases related this movement were not dismissed or even prosecuted is a fact
and the fact that the media was talking about all these cases wel. before it was known the cops won't be prosecuted is also a fact.
every single part of your previous post is flawed.
I've discussed how there are no proper markers for measuring the movement's success, how the individual cases that made the movement happen are based on lies despite the few that must be racism, the lacking distinction between police brutality and racially motivated brutality, and how the melded issues justified and not cannot be held together. So I should join any movement that has a resemblance to action? I don't think so. I don't think burning this bitch down, disrupting traffic, calling black officers race traitors, or shutting down a book deal detailing how a jury decision went down is the right course of action.
Also opinions like TwZ said. Would you like to discuss any of the details that suggest the Black Lives Matter movement loses credibility?
"also they have been complaining about this for decades but have always been dismissed as lying criminals because the cops word has more weight" -Nemiroff
Read the latter that's nothing but an opinion.
Many of the police who do kill somebody who is innocent is discharged from the force. Only a few are not and those are the ones that are published on the media instead of the police officer who is discharged.
what's opinion, I made several points, you are not being clear again.
I never said nothing has changed nor brought up any change.
I don't care where he is from. if he kills an innocent man then at the least he should be instantly discharged from the force. the police are there to protect the citizens, not endanger them.
and it is very possible. now that we have videos that is....
however it has been impossible for decades. don't forget the difference an unaffordable lawyer can make.
You can't say nothing has changed, because there had been an influx of military personnel who joined the police force after the war. A person who is trained on different ROEs then the police force is going to have issues initially it's natural. Your arguments about it being impossible to win against an officer in a court of law is highly opinionated though.
That's opinion though.
I addressed both of these already. the defending yourself in my previous post.
the difference between a civilian murder and a murder with the authority of the state 3 posts ago.
You can defend against a police officer in a court of law. It has been done before. Look at the stats I posted. It's simple, 12.5% of murders are from police officers 87.5% are from civilians. It's people that are the issue.
you can only fight police brutality after the fact, if your not dead, and with a good lawyer these people cannot afford.
also they have been complaining about this for decades but have always been dismissed as lying criminals because the cops word has more weight, this isn't something new. the only new thing is the videos.
they have tried fighting the police brutality and they only ended up losing more and more. I don't understand what you meant by this isn't the group to do it, but how London do you expect them to wait for this "right group" while people are dying for absolutely no reason.
I never said it was racism on the part of individual officers, although that has been found in some situations.
it's unintentional racism from the system and the way it was set up, such as the strict enforcement of broke windows policies in most low income areas and officers demanding respect without giving any in return (especially while stopping innocent people for absolutely no reason).
trying to raise funds by targeting the poorest neighborhoods with disproportionate traffic crackdowns is just cruel, and the elimination of beat cops due to budget cuts (again the "fiscally responsible" screw everything up) eliminated any form of good relations between the police and the policed.
Self defense against a cop is notable in justifiable cases. Without properly filtering those cases a moral high ground can't be established, nor can it be said that the movement mitigates the action. There is worth in a proper counter brutality movement, even regarding racism. But this is not the group to do it.
civilians do not kill with the authority of the state....
you can fight back against the civilians and they can be brought to justice.
you can't defend yourself against a cop.
I was implying that you should have just stop adding onto your statement after your first sentence.
There were ~15,000 homicides last year, with ~1200 being from police. So civilians are ~14 times more likely to be killed by another civilian then a police officer. You can't point at the police when in truth it's Civilians murdering civilians more often.
read properly, the color of the killer is irrelevant. the fact that the killers are cops is what is relevant. the fact that all the victims are black is also relevant.
Actually this whole topic is about color and it not mattering.
it doesn't matter about the color of the killer. it's about their level of authority. criminals killing people is wrong, but authorities killing unarmed, nonthreatening people is unjust.
can't you see the difference when your attacker has a badge and his violence comes with the full validation of the state against which you had better not fight but just bow your head and accept?
as a jew I'm sure you heard of the pogroms in the Soviet Union and pre Soviet russia. the Kazaks who would come by and kill any Jews that look up at them, that how it feels to be assaulted by authority. complete powerlessness. not the same as a criminal against which you can exercise self defense.
The FBIs homicide table.
You'll see races are killing themselves, it's not white people targeting black people or vice versa.
It started with the Trayvon Martin case, championed Micheal Brown and Eric Garner, and encircles all police brutality in race. I want justice for Sandra Bland, but Freddy Gray was brutality, not racism. I count three cases of outright ignorance of issues, two counts of police brutality, and only one of them has race as a factor.
Racism has been found in police forces under investigation, and I'm not against investigation police officers, but I haven't come across many possibly racial motivation besides Sandra Bland. If you want to argue the individual issues, we can do that. However, seeing as how the prosecution tried to suppress evidence in the Trayvon case, anyone I have ever argued can't recount the proper circumstances that Brown met his officer, and Eric Garner chokehold claims that don't quite add up or even don't account for improper medical treatment when the medics arrived. This is what I mean by lies, purposeful suppression, initial assumption, or outright ignorance on the treatment of those arrested by police AND paramedics.
And isn't one of the founders of Black Lives Matter a wanted individual?
how is the movement based on lies?
it's based on people being killed by cops who showed no sign of violence, no resistance, and no weapons. these things actually happened, and the tapes actually showed that many times, the cops lie about the incidents.
you asked for examples of citizen terrorists, then cry when I give examples....
your the one who took the thread in that direction, am I supposed to feel bad for answering your question?!? who's the troll?
and the status of someone's citizenship is not an opinion...
Forgot to agree, though hopefully that was obvious.
Nemiroff actually had a point on our overtly political correctness on the slogan itself,but the foundations of the movement itself is based on, and championed with lies. I do want justice for some cases, but it cannot be done by that group, what checkpoints exist that provide a definite end to their struggle even? Can their political protests be considered a move in the right direction? With the slogan itself, complaints of political incorrectness is unfair, but when the group's progress is unmapped and some may consider a step in the wrong direction, there is plenty of room for abuse. Not saying it is happening as a whole now, but with individual protesters it is apparent.
Leave it to people to try to make this post about them and not people. No one cares about your statements about terrorist. If you love terrorist so much go be one lol.
High five to you all that tried to troll on it. No one cares about your opinion if you want to just point flaws at why all lives don't matter, it's embarrassing.
-Black people get shot by authorities because they do not listen and attack authorities. If they quit alongside whites, nobody would get shot by police. Yes, there are some bad police officers. There always will be. The large majority of African-Americans who get shot by officials would not get shot if they acted right. For instance, Micheal Brown.
if you say "I love mom" does that mean you don't love your dad?
does saying black lives matter mean you think only black lives matter?
maybe the difference is we need to say that black live specifically matter CAUSE THEY KEEP DYING AT THE HANDS OF AUTHORITY and have been feeling like their Iives don't matter.
by shouting over them and trying to include yourself when your life is not in danger is selfish and despicable.
once again, black lives matter does not mean only black lives matter. so to all of you who have been whining about how political correctness is ruining america, how is demanding that we cannot say black lives matter not your own stupid version of political correctness? same with the necessity of saying ISLAMIC extremists as if calling them ordinary extremists or terrorists doesn't define them just as well.
politically correct drones.
the Boston marathon bombers, San Bernardino attackers, the emanual church shooter, the abortion clinic attackers, they were all citizens
as were all the school shooters.
How many terrorist are US citizens? Or are you just being a troll?
so you mean terrorist lives matter?