Funny, I haven't seen this before...
-
wrote on 21 Nov 2022, 15:28 last edited by jon-nyc
Jolly - I understand your need to deflect rather than face the reality of what your people did.
But the whattaboutism falls flat on me since I never thought of myself as being ‘on the side’ of the BLM protesters (which would have been apparent in my posts about it here when it was unfolding in 2020)
-
wrote on 21 Nov 2022, 15:46 last edited by Doctor Phibes
@jon-nyc said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
American tourists are even worse than British ones.
Well, sober British ones at least.
Seems to me like a lot of the folks on both sides should be going to jail.
-
Jolly - I understand your need to deflect rather than face the reality of what your people did.
But the whattaboutism falls flat on me since I never thought of myself as being ‘on the side’ of the BLM protesters (which would have been apparent in my posts about it here when it was unfolding in 2020)
wrote on 21 Nov 2022, 17:18 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
Jolly - I understand your need to deflect rather than face the reality of what your people did.
But the whattaboutism falls flat on me since I never thought of myself as being ‘on the side’ of the BLM protesters (which would have been apparent in my posts about it here when it was unfolding in 2020)
It's not deflection, it's simple Justice. You match the punishment to the crime. Some of this stuff is positively Robispierrean in its arguments.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 02:39 last edited by
I think there are cases where the same "crime" will receive different punishments.
Person A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Person B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Person B will get a harder sentence.
I kagree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 06:09 last edited by
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
-
One cannot expect lefties to feel feels about the shenanigans associated with their own side. At best they will clinically report that those actions were wrong and should be prosecuted within the law. But if you want spittle, you must ask them about January 6.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 13:50 last edited by@Horace said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
One cannot expect lefties to feel feels about the shenanigans associated with their own side. At best they will clinically report that those actions were wrong and should be prosecuted within the law. But if you want spittle, you must ask them about January 6.
Some of them claim the BLM rioters were just tourists taking selfies.
-
@Horace said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
One cannot expect lefties to feel feels about the shenanigans associated with their own side. At best they will clinically report that those actions were wrong and should be prosecuted within the law. But if you want spittle, you must ask them about January 6.
Some of them claim the BLM rioters were just tourists taking selfies.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 14:01 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Horace said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
One cannot expect lefties to feel feels about the shenanigans associated with their own side. At best they will clinically report that those actions were wrong and should be prosecuted within the law. But if you want spittle, you must ask them about January 6.
Some of them claim the BLM rioters were just tourists taking selfies.
One of these days you’ll crack the code and convince everybody that both sides are the same, except when the Republicans are worse.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 15:28 last edited by
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
-
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 15:58 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
A distinction without a difference. In both cases what Jolly and other sane people are complaining about, is the politically motivated unequal 'justice'.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
A distinction without a difference. In both cases what Jolly and other sane people are complaining about, is the politically motivated unequal 'justice'.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 16:34 last edited by@Horace I dont disagree with you and Jolly. The other pretestors should have gotten a harder sentence, for sure.
But, I am not sure that I agree that all those judges in the other cases were politically motivated to give a lighter sentence.
-
@Horace I dont disagree with you and Jolly. The other pretestors should have gotten a harder sentence, for sure.
But, I am not sure that I agree that all those judges in the other cases were politically motivated to give a lighter sentence.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 17:19 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Horace I dont disagree with you and Jolly. The other pretestors should have gotten a harder sentence, for sure.
But, I am not sure that I agree that all those judges in the other cases were politically motivated to give a lighter sentence.
Again a distinction without a difference. An unequal presence or absence of bias is a problem regardless of whether one labels either side as an absence or a presence.
-
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 19:34 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
Rewrite this sugar...
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, on the other side of a wall)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
-
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
We're not talking Person A vs. Person B.
We're talking multiple people.
Same thing. I can rewrite as:
Group A breaks into a local 7-11, goes into the back office and takes personal items from the office desk.
Group B breaks into the White House, goes into the oval office and takes personal items from the office desk
100% guarantee that Group B will get a harder sentence.
But again, I agree with Jon. I dont think that the people who broke into the Capital got too hard a sentence, I think that the people who did the damage to the federal buildings got too light a sentence.
Rewrite this sugar...
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, on the other side of a wall)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 20:48 last edited by jon-nyc@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, violently breaking through a door towards where the congressmen were)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
NNTTM.
But keep in mind the macro picture doesn't really matter for any one individual's criminal proceeding, it's about what they themselves did.
And the fact that they did this at the Capitol threatening elected officials actually does matter to individual criminal proceedings.
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 21:06 last edited by
Don't forget the selfies
-
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 21:12 last edited by
It's a shame you chaps don't play more soccer. That tends to be a good place where yobs can congregate and fight one another. Political thuggery is so gauche.
-
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, violently breaking through a door towards where the congressmen were)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
NNTTM.
But keep in mind the macro picture doesn't really matter for any one individual's criminal proceeding, it's about what they themselves did.
And the fact that they did this at the Capitol threatening elected officials actually does matter to individual criminal proceedings.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 21:57 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
But keep in mind the macro picture doesn't really matter for any one individual's criminal proceeding, it's about what they themselves did.
That depends on which bias is being claimed.
-
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, violently breaking through a door towards where the congressmen were)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
NNTTM.
But keep in mind the macro picture doesn't really matter for any one individual's criminal proceeding, it's about what they themselves did.
And the fact that they did this at the Capitol threatening elected officials actually does matter to individual criminal proceedings.
wrote on 22 Nov 2022, 23:28 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@Jolly said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
@taiwan_girl said in Funny, I haven't seen this before...:
- 700 police injured.
- At least 11 people killed.
- $1.2B damage
Vs.
- 140 police injured (I think that's inflated, but let's go with it).
- 1 person killed (unarmed, violently breaking through a door towards where the congressmen were)
- $1.5M damage
Yes, I can certainly see how those figures are equal..
NNTTM.
But keep in mind the macro picture doesn't really matter for any one individual's criminal proceeding, it's about what they themselves did.
And the fact that they did this at the Capitol threatening elected officials actually does matter to individual criminal proceedings.
English Common Law vs. Napoleonic Code. If we were under NC, that argument would work. English Common Law, not so much.