I disagree big time. Individuals blocked them from being civil. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is science redcoat. Too many down votes for me to read this shitty thread and your opening argument just leads me to believe I have already wasted too much time on my own post.
So, after you use ad hominem to attack and insult me and then I call you out on it, you delete your comment and decide you better at least try to make an argument? I'd be fine with that if you weren't still using ad hominem attacks (incorrect ones at that) to form your comment.
I'll humor you all the same.
I disagree big time. Individuals blocked them from being civil.
How did they block them from driving away? If they physically stood in front and behind the vehicle to attempt to, "block" them, that still does not justify leaving the vehicle's protection to continue engaging in an ego argument. I'll come back to this point later (though I already addressed it in my original comment, which I'm guessing you didn't read).
If you're saying that as violence increases, one cannot remain, "civil" in their defense, I reject both premises.
For the first premise: First of all, words != violence. These black women were shouting, and had many opportunities for physical violence, but never partook in the action. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have been threatening, or that this wasn't a pre attack indicator for escalated violence, but it does mean that they were at the time not violent. Without violence, there is no reason for the white couple to become, "uncivil."
For the second premise: One can defend themselves in any situation while remaining, "civil." It is not uncivil for a person to kill another in self defense. There are two definitions that you could use here for, "civil." The first, would relate to citizenship. It is absolutely American to use lethal force (when it is NECESSARY) in self defense. This should be abundantly clear by the entire history of our country, even if you were to ignore the fact that we are the only country in the world that recognizes a human's God given right to the details of the 2nd. The second definition would relate to societal politeness. It is still perfectly civil to defend yourself when doing so in a logical manner. In any self defense situation, there is a reasonable response to be had, often multiple responses can be valid, but there is always at least one response that is most reasonable. The best strategy (when available) is to deescalate and avoid trouble, but this is not always possible, and of course different circumstances are different. However, one can always remain civil and reasonable given proper knowledge and experience in regards to self defense.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is science redcoat.
Newton's Third Law of Motion is not applicable to psychological, legal, moral, or self defense topics. I will never understand how someone can know so little about something and act like an expert on it.
Also, could you please fuck off with the insults? It is clear to anyone reading this thread that I am trying to have a real discussion here, and your insults have no place in this.
Too many down votes for me to read this shitty thread and your opening argument just leads me to believe I have already wasted too much time on my own post.
Ah, so you admit to confirming my suspicions. You admit to having near total ignorance of my comment, and yet you still act as if you understand what I am saying. It's baffling as to how someone could be so arrogant as you - to think you understand what I am saying - to think that you understand who I am, what I am trying to do in this thread, what points I am making - without even reading my comment.
I'll suggest it to you once more: I implore you to take a hard look at your actions here. You're not behaving in a logical manner; You're behaving like a liberal.
I disagree big time. Individuals blocked them from being civil. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is science redcoat. Too many down votes for me to read this shitty thread and your opening argument just leads me to believe I have already wasted too much time on my own post.
So, after you use ad hominem to attack and insult me and then I call you out on it, you delete your comment and decide you better at least try to make an argument? I'd be fine with that if you weren't still using ad hominem attacks (incorrect ones at that) to form your comment.
I'll humor you all the same.
How did they block them from driving away? If they physically stood in front and behind the vehicle to attempt to, "block" them, that still does not justify leaving the vehicle's protection to continue engaging in an ego argument. I'll come back to this point later (though I already addressed it in my original comment, which I'm guessing you didn't read).
If you're saying that as violence increases, one cannot remain, "civil" in their defense, I reject both premises.
For the first premise: First of all, words != violence. These black women were shouting, and had many opportunities for physical violence, but never partook in the action. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have been threatening, or that this wasn't a pre attack indicator for escalated violence, but it does mean that they were at the time not violent. Without violence, there is no reason for the white couple to become, "uncivil."
For the second premise: One can defend themselves in any situation while remaining, "civil." It is not uncivil for a person to kill another in self defense. There are two definitions that you could use here for, "civil." The first, would relate to citizenship. It is absolutely American to use lethal force (when it is NECESSARY) in self defense. This should be abundantly clear by the entire history of our country, even if you were to ignore the fact that we are the only country in the world that recognizes a human's God given right to the details of the 2nd. The second definition would relate to societal politeness. It is still perfectly civil to defend yourself when doing so in a logical manner. In any self defense situation, there is a reasonable response to be had, often multiple responses can be valid, but there is always at least one response that is most reasonable. The best strategy (when available) is to deescalate and avoid trouble, but this is not always possible, and of course different circumstances are different. However, one can always remain civil and reasonable given proper knowledge and experience in regards to self defense.
Newton's Third Law of Motion is not applicable to psychological, legal, moral, or self defense topics. I will never understand how someone can know so little about something and act like an expert on it.
Also, could you please fuck off with the insults? It is clear to anyone reading this thread that I am trying to have a real discussion here, and your insults have no place in this.
Ah, so you admit to confirming my suspicions. You admit to having near total ignorance of my comment, and yet you still act as if you understand what I am saying. It's baffling as to how someone could be so arrogant as you - to think you understand what I am saying - to think that you understand who I am, what I am trying to do in this thread, what points I am making - without even reading my comment.
I'll suggest it to you once more: I implore you to take a hard look at your actions here. You're not behaving in a logical manner; You're behaving like a liberal.