Why BLM does have a point.

[PTMartin]

Claiming BLM is a terrorist organization would be comparabe to me saying the Republican party is a terroristic organization, openly supporting civil wars, pro-guns, and wishes that religion was given the freedom of impeding on laws set in place to prevent such ignorance.

True! Only 141,444 people signed the petition supporting the idea that BLM is a terrorist organization. If they were really a terrorist organization many more would have signed! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...t-organization

Just because they use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims doesn't make them a terrorist organization!

Total costs for just the Ferguson riots cost local/state government around $26 Million. If they were a real terrorist organization, the total would have been much more!

[Dab]

True! Only 141,444 people signed the petition supporting the idea that BLM is a terrorist organization. If they were really a terrorist organization many more would have signed! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...t-organization

Just because they use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims doesn't make them a terrorist organization!

Total costs for just the Ferguson riots cost local/state government around $26 Million. If they were a real terrorist organization, the total would have been much more!

If a group of feminist goes around chopping guys balls, does that mean we should consider feminist terrorists?

[PTMartin]

Lol yawn, did what I say just not acknowledge I'm well aware of the parties transition, you're just pointing that small point I made about how conservatives are bigots, because that was the time when the parties were switching.

Wait, what do you mean parties switching? Before the GOP was good, now they're bad? What year did that happen? When did they start turning stupid?

I'm making a point about someones post, it's directly related to the root cause of why BLM exists.

Back to BLM? Cool. Okay, the root cause why BLM exists is the Republicans are stupid racists, but again what year did this start?

If a group of feminist goes around chopping guys balls, does that mean we should consider feminist terrorists?

Of course not! Only the feminist terrorists are feminist terrorists, but we know for sure that "Literally Nothing Good Comes From Being Conservative." Nothing, not one single thing. Literally. Every one of those Republicans are stupid. At least those after some date, I think.

[CYBERPVNK]

That's the furthest from the truth though. Why can't anyone uphold logic and reason above ignorance and bigotry?

I've went above and beyond to prove how BLM has a fundamentally good point behind it, I've never claimed or even implied all whites were racist. The amount of sheer misinterpretation coming from you plebs is appalling. When someone explains how gravity works, you are inclined to believe them. However a few centuries ago, you'd say they're crazy. We made advancements in logic in reason, ignoring these things only leads to self destruction and further conflict.

- - - Updated - - -



You forgot how the gop funds the private prisons/jails/probation systems, the democrats do too but not nearly as much as the republicans.

Oh and they're anti-science, mostly religious, and tend to lack a formal education. Just a few things to through out there for the party that largely suppressed black voters, oh and the conservatives are the one who created jim crow laws of course, then when the parties switched they voted for new jim crow laws as republicans. Literally nothing good comes from being conservative.

Okay how the fuck is the conservative party "anti-science"? That does not even make remote sense.

[Confluency]

Okay how the fuck is the conservative party "anti-science"? That does not even make remote sense.

All you have to do is muster up some brains cells, and look at tbe candidates they offered this election and google their views on things like Religion and Global warming. They put religion over science.

So at the end of the day, yes, they are anti-science.

Afterall it's not a coincidence scientists statistically are overwhelmingly shown to support liberal/democratic ideals.

[CYBERPVNK]

All you have to do is muster up some brains cells, and look at tbe candidates they offered this election and google their views on things like Religion and Global warming. They put religion over science.

So at the end of the day, yes, they are anti-science.

Afterall it's not a coincidence scientists statistically are overwhelmingly shown to support liberal/democratic ideals.

You are using the terminology "anti-science" so lightly. Just because someone may not agree with or believe everything that scientist(s) say does not render an entire political party anti-science. That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

In regards to religion being anti-science in your opinion. It's not. Science has not disprove the existence of God and religious individuals have not proven the existence of God, therefor believing in a higher power and/or deity does not make one anti-science.

As for global warming, it is over-hyped as an immediate threat to mankind.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
Climate Change “Consensus of Scientists” Is Idiotic
Top Climate Scientists Admit Their Models Have Been Very Wrong

 

[Dab]

Wait, what do you mean parties switching? Before the GOP was good, now they're bad? What year did that happen? When did they start turning stupid?



Back to BLM? Cool. Okay, the root cause why BLM exists is the Republicans are stupid racists, but again what year did this start?



Of course not! Only the feminist terrorists are feminist terrorists, but we know for sure that "Literally Nothing Good Comes From Being Conservative." Nothing, not one single thing. Literally. Every one of those Republicans are stupid. At least those after some date, I think.

Go back to school. The republican party used to be the liberal/progressive party and the democrats were the conservatives. Around the time of the american civil war the two sides changed, and republicans took over the south while the democrats up north were progressive.

You're simply ignorant, Feminist terrorists =/= BLM Terrorists =/= Christian terrorists, do you see a trend here? You just admitted you can't generalize a group, refuting your original argument. We're done here, ignored.

[wan]

You are using the terminology "anti-science" so lightly. Just because someone may not agree with or believe everything that scientist(s) say does not render an entire political party anti-science. That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

All conservatives aren't anti-science, but a lot of mainstream conservatives are very anti-science if science contradicts their views. However, a lot of the left prefers to ignore proof and evidence if it contradicts their views also.

In regards to religion being anti-science in your opinion. It's not. Science has not disprove the existence of God and religious individuals have not proven the existence of God, therefor believing in a higher power and/or deity does not make one anti-science.

Religion, for the most part, is anti-science. Religion is based on belief and is resistant to change, while science is based on evidence and changes the way it looks at things regularly.
You can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim (God) so that argument is shit. Religion has made the claim that a God exists, so it's their job to prove that claim, it's not other people's job to disprove it; that's a logical fallacy.

As for global warming, it is over-hyped as an immediate threat to mankind.

Global warming might not be an immediate threat to humanity, but it is a threat itself.
Here's a video explaining what will happen if global warming continues as it is.

[Voucher]

blm is still worthless and i can see why dab is cs

[PTMartin]

Go back to school. The republican party used to be the liberal/progressive party and the democrats were the conservatives. Around the time of the american civil war the two sides changed, and republicans took over the south while the democrats up north were progressive.

So about 1865? That's the end of the civil war. So everything bad after that was done by Republicans and everything good by Democrats? How exactly did the Republicans take over the south? I never learned that in school.

You're simply ignorant

Again Ignorant? As long as that's an just educated assumption on the character and intellect, and not an insult, no problem.

Feminist terrorists =/= BLM Terrorists =/= Christian terrorists, do you see a trend here? You just admitted you can't generalize a group

Agreed! Except of course when it comes to every Republican because as you said, "Literally Nothing Good Comes From Being Conservative." Nothing, not one single thing. Literally. Every one of those Republicans are stupid. At least those after 1865. Maybe there was a stupid virus that went around and for some reason only the Republicans caught it and the Democrats became smart!

[Confluency]

All conservatives aren't anti-science, but a lot of mainstream conservatives are very anti-science if science contradicts their views. However, a lot of the left prefers to ignore proof and evidence if it contradicts their views also.



Religion, for the most part, is anti-science. Religion is based on belief and is resistant to change, while science is based on evidence and changes the way it looks at things regularly.
You can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim (God) so that argument is shit. Religion has made the claim that a God exists, so it's their job to prove that claim, it's not other people's job to disprove it; that's a logical fallacy.


Global warming might not be an immediate threat to humanity, but it is a threat itself.
Here's a video explaining what will happen if global warming continues as it is.

I'll just redirect you to this post @Gothamite.

Also to add on, it may not be an immediate threat to us but what is factual is if we want to have a prosperous world for the next generations, NOW is the best time to work towards it. You're argument of "its not an immediate threat" is comparable to someone having a form of cancer that slowly kills them and them saying "Atleast I'm not gonna die right now lol".


You refuting global warming being an issue is exactly the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

True! Only 141,444 people signed the petition supporting the idea that BLM is a terrorist organization. If they were really a terrorist organization many more would have signed! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//pe...t-organization

Just because they use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims doesn't make them a terrorist organization!

Total costs for just the Ferguson riots cost local/state government around $26 Million. If they were a real terrorist organization, the total would have been much more!

Just because they use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims doesn't make them a terrorist organization!

By this definition, would the US government including every president in the past and present be labelled a "terrorist"? Just curious.

Onto my main point, why is it "incorrect" and "stereotyping" if I go out and say "ALL WEAPONS ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE BANNED" because of statistically irrelevant mass shootings, but when statistically irrelevant groups of BLM protesters go out of their way to cause issue the entire group is labelled terrorists?


You realize your views are distorted by media you consume mostly based on the fact that when you hear something about the BLM it's going to be negative, simply because that's the rhetoric that it being spread. Ever hear of "vocal minority"? Most BLM want peaceful protests, but throw a match in a bale of hay and what happens?

P.s I don't even agree with alot of what BLM protests, buy what I also do not agree with is egregious claims like "BLM is a terrorist organization".

[PTMartin]

By this definition, would the US government including every president in the past and present be labelled a "terrorist"? Just curious.

Not every president. Just the Republican presidents after 1865. That's when Republicans became bad and Democrats became good. Thanks for asking!

Onto my main point, why is it "incorrect" and "stereotyping" if I go out and say "ALL WEAPONS ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE BANNED" because of statistically irrelevant mass shootings, but when statistically irrelevant groups of BLM protesters go out of their way to cause issue the entire group is labelled terrorists?

Ah, the good old, "they're just a few extremists, they aren't the real BLMers. The real BLM people are peaceful, gentile, respectful activists."

So how do we determine who exactly the real BLM members are, what they believe, how they behave and what percent they are of the total organization?

You made the claim that the bad ones are "statistically irrelevant". Do support that claim please.

You realize your views are distorted by media you consume mostly based on the fact that when you hear something about the BLM it's going to be negative, simply because that's the rhetoric that it being spread. Ever hear of "vocal minority"? Most BLM want peaceful protests, but throw a match in a bale of hay and what happens?

I can only speculate on how an organization that professes and acts like BLM does, only as a white activist group would be perceived. Oh wait, it's already been tried, it was called the KKK. Here's how Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson described them:



Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson

“It’s a hate group, they’re no different than the skinheads or the KKK. They are people who have never been taught to love. From the beginning of their lives they were taught to hate, blame and become victims. If Black Lives Matter was a white radical group, doing exactly what these black people are doing, they would be shut down. America would not allow that to happen”

[CYBERPVNK]

~snip~

All conservatives aren't anti-science, but a lot of mainstream conservatives are very anti-science if science contradicts their views.

This is illogical. Simply because someone may not believe certain aspects of scientific "discoveries" or research does not make one anti-science. Simply because a scientist may believe they discovered something, for example the "Big Bang Theory", does not mean it is fact and anyone that who shares a different viewpoint or belief to this discovery is anti-scientific.

Religion, for the most part, is anti-science. Religion is based on belief and is resistant to change, while science is based on evidence and changes the way it looks at things regularly.

No, it is not, and here is why. As I explained previously, science has yet to disprove the existence of a deity or higher-power; while religion has yet to prove the existence of a deity or higher-power. To simply believe that God or Gods exist is not anti-scientific because science itself has yet to prove any other way the universe came about.

Global warming might not be an immediate threat to humanity, but it is a threat itself.

Interesting you say this, because scientist that support your stance have been warning us that global warming is a "the most serious threat the United States is currently facing" for the last hundred years.

Climate Claims Debunked

Regardless, this is all coming from a political party that supports transgenderism. So please don't get me started on who really is "anti-scientific".

- - - Updated - - -

~snip~

Also to add on, it may not be an immediate threat to us but what is factual is if we want to have a prosperous world for the next generations, NOW is the best time to work towards it.

I never stated that I don't care about our future generations, but the liberal media is making climate change/global warming out to be some kind of immediate and direct threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Regardless if global warming is or is not a immediate threat, what would you have us all do to slow and/or stop global warming? Should we all stop using automobiles and planes? Should we halt burning fuels/mining essential resources? Please do elaborate on what should be done about global warming and how we can "work towards" saving the next generations.

You refuting global warming being an issue is exactly the problem.

National/international terrorism is a more immediate threat than global warming, which you most likely deny; as do most any other left/liberal individual.

[Dab]

This is illogical. Simply because someone may not believe certain aspects of scientific "discoveries" or research does not make one anti-science. Simply because a scientist may believe they discovered something, for example the "Big Bang Theory", does not mean it is fact and anyone that who shares a different viewpoint or belief to this discovery is anti-scientific.

He's talking about conservative members of government, and conservative pundits. They have historical denied science, dismissed science, and irrefutable objected to science. There is a reason why you have conservative senators bringing fucking snow balls from outside then throwing them on the ground ranting "SEE, GLOBAL WARMING DOESNT EXIST CUZ THERES SNOW OUTSIDE"...

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is not, and here is why. As I explained previously, science has yet to disprove the existence of a deity or higher-power; while religion has yet to prove the existence of a deity or higher-power. To simply believe that God or Gods exist is not anti-scientific because science itself has yet to prove any other way the universe came about.
.

LOL how is this explaining "how religion is not anti-science". Can you please be more coherent? Also, can I prove to you that you were created by your parents? Sure, you could see how everyone else is created by a man and a women, but that isn't absolute proof. So are you to just go on faith on the evidence at hand?

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting you say this, because scientist that support your stance have been warning us that global warming is a "the most serious threat the United States is currently facing" for the last hundred years.

Climate Claims Debunked

Regardless, this is all coming from a political party that supports transgenderism. So please don't get me started on who really is "anti-scientific".

Not even sure who you were quoting, or what you're even trying to say... Climate Change is without a doubt obviously real, many people around the world are being severely effected by it now. I don't have to go into detail as to how Climate Change is bad, the fact we're consistently changing something that cannot be undone is enough of a justification to pass legislation that prevents further erratic climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

I never stated that I don't care about our future generations, but the liberal media is making climate change/global warming out to be some kind of immediate and direct threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Regardless if global warming is or is not a immediate threat, what would you have us all do to slow and/or stop global warming? Should we all stop using automobiles and planes? Should we halt burning fuels/mining essential resources? Please do elaborate on what should be done about global warming and how we can "work towards" saving the next generations.



National/international terrorism is a more immediate threat than global warming, which you most likely deny; as do most any other left/liberal individual.

You're ignorant. Science and the physical world is making climate change out to be an immediate and DIRECT threat towards every country. We can pass legislation that regulates big businesses that are benefiting from mass usage of resources which cause greenhouse gases. There is obvious and blatant lash out by big business who wants to maintain all their capita. Nobody wants to lose jobs, lose money, etc... But the fact is these things have to and will change.

Besides that (blatantly obvious) there are countless other ways we can cut back on CO2 emissions. Aside from that, we're also going to need more innovation. Simply watching the weather isn't going to workout for long as I'm sure we're aware of. Once we can control the weather to a greater extent (putting wind turbines in the golf / out at sea to prevent hurricanes, using HAARP technology to say create rain) then we'll really be capable of handling the climate change that is going to take place just by the sheer development of humans. All we really can do is lessen our impact on the planet as much as possible, and take precautions for the inevitable.

Of course conservatives can't fathom this, and but luckily human beings are as stupid as they were a few century or more ago. We're all slowly but surely becoming more rational, and long term in our thinking.

[CYBERPVNK]

~snip~

He's Talking About Conservative Members Of Government, And Conservative Pundits. They Have Historical Denied Science, Dismissed Science, And Irrefutable Objected To Science.

I understand this, but he is also referring to individuals that are Conservative. Would you please provide some sources of these conservative pundits being "anti-science"? I do not disagree that there are those from both political parties, republican and democratic, that deny scientific and proven facts, but it would be nice to be provided with some of this "historic denial" of science.

LOL How Is This Explaining "How Religion Is Not Anti-Science".

It's simple logic really. I would think a person of your intellect would be able to comprehend my explanation. Guess you are just a pseudo intellect after all.

Can You Please Be More Coherent?

But I am being completely coherent. It's not the hard to understand my logic.

Also, Can I Prove To You That You Were Created By Your Parents? Sure, You Could See How Everyone Else Is Created By A Man And A Women, But That Isn't Absolute Proof.

The fact that human beings are given birth to by other human beings does not confirm scientific theories of how the universe was created, let alone disprove the existence of a God or higher-power. This is a null argument.

Not Even Sure Who You Were Quoting

Try reading the previous comments, buddy. You will then see I was quoting Confluency and Cohen.

Or What You're Even Trying To Say

It's alright. By now I understand that your idiocy is making it hard to comprehend basic statements.

Climate Change Is Without A Doubt Obviously Real

My argument is not denying this though. My argument is that it is not an immediate threat as the left/liberal media is making it out to be.

Many People Around The World Are Being Severely Effected By It Now.

Sources please.

I Don't Have To Go Into Detail As To How Climate Change Is Bad

Oh sure you do. If you are going to claim that something is bad or good, I expect that you give reasoning to why it is so. This is why you are bad at debating.