Riot Season 2021

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, like that's literally why the charge of "manslaughter" even exists. Cases like that one specifically. It's basically, "I didn't MEAN to kill him, but... oops." That's exactly what happened and that's exactly what "manslaughter" is.

"Murder" implies intent. Even second- or third-degree murder would suggest that the cop knelt on his neck purposely so that he WOULD die rather than just be restrained. In the case of third-degree it's a little bit murkier, because all that's necessary to fit that definition is "reckless disregard", but the term "murder" still implies intent.

And I - and a lot of people - have a VERY hard time believing that this cop - with a bunch of people watching and cameras on him and everything - MEANT to kill the guy by kneeling on him. I don't buy that at all.

Manslaughter would be applicable and acceptable. No problem there. Could've been more careful, and a guy died (who probably would have OD'ed anyway, but we're not supposed to dwell on that). So sure, charge and convict on manslaughter, the appropriate term. That's fine and fair.

The "murder" conviction was nothing more than serving the cop up as a "necessary sacrifice" so that a bunch of "progressive and well-meaning" people didn't "peacefully protest" a bunch of major cities into a smoking burnt-out husk. Any idiot could see it, and whether that was "necessary" or not, it still shows you exactly where we are right now. "We'd better convict this guy of a crime he technically isn't guilty of, or else."

But the cops are the Bad Guys. Jesus. I don't even particularly like cops, I just end up having to defend them because Obvious Bullsh*t Is Obvious and it gets on my goddamn nerves.

why does it take a turtle forum to have the most common sense I've seen online?

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Prowler

Wait what? What do they mean by "dismantling the nuclear family"? Isn't that the problem of a lot of black people living in poverty in the US? The fact they often live in single mum homes? So why is BLM trying to make the problem worse?

I don't think it's exclusively a racial thing. A LOT of left-leaning people have been very loudly insisting for quite some time now that "kids don't need two parents to turn out alright," except most impartial studies pretty conclusively prove that Uh, YEAH you f*cking do.

At the very LEAST a kid needs to grow up in a two-income household for the simple fact of stability. But a lot of people much smarter and better-paid than I am can lecture at length about all the balancing influence that a kid with two parents is going to grow up getting, versus someone with only one parent. And while I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with gay marriage, or gay couples raising kids, in THEORY - a lot of "experts" also strongly suggest that kids benefit from having both a Male and Female perspective during their formative years. Ultimately, the MOST important thing is always going to be that the kid grows up in a stable, supportive, and loving environment, and that trumps having a Mom and a Dad or two of either, in and of itself, BUT... the jury's still out on what kind of long-term effects kids raised under same-sex parents will have on a mass scale, and a lot of studies do suggest that having a Mom and a Dad can nurture kids into generally becoming more balanced and well-rounded people. Some reports suggest that kids raised with two Moms grow up with a strong anti-male bias, for example, or that kids raised by same-sex parents might be "pressured" either overtly or subconsciously to be homosexual themselves; who actually knows if that's true, but for some it's a cause of concern. And the fact is, we honestly DON'T know yet.

So yeah, in a society where divorce is rampant, women are encouraged to raise kids out of wedlock for the sake of proving that she's a "strong, independent woman" (regardless of how it affects the kid), and same-sex couples are raising kids in unprecedented numbers (and again, we really don't know what if any effect that's ultimately going to have on the kids they raise, if any effect at all, because it's still rather uncharted territory)... is it any wonder at all that people on the left-leaning side of things state that "breaking down the traditional family unit" is of primary importance? They'll say it's about "combating prejudice", but the truth is, it's about Vested Self-Interest.

Now, to be clear, people should be free to live however they want to, in general, but I think adding kids to the situation complicates that a bit. Kids are easily-manipulated, they pick up on cues from the people raising them, and they tend to adopt the traits and behaviors of their parents whether they mean to, want to, or not. These are facts. Just like it's a fact that kids raised in single-parent households, statistically, grow up poorer, do worse in school, act out more, have more anger issues, get involved with drugs at younger ages, have a harder time finding good jobs once they're in the workforce, have more problems with the law as adults, and earn less income over a lifetime. Now, that's obviously a broad general statement that won't apply to every single individual, but over 70 years of data backs that up. And that's just for kids raised in single-parent households; as for The Other Stuff... we really just plain don't know yet.

What we do know at the absolute least is that kids need two parents to have the objective best chance at "making it". It's irresponsible and flat-out wrong to imply otherwise. But that goes against the lifestyle a lot of people on the Left choose to live, so naturally, they want to "disprove" that theory by conducting a massive social experiment. "Dissolve the traditional family unit." Serves them well individually, but it's bad for Society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

why does it take a turtle forum to have the most common sense I've seen online?

My Mom smoked a ton of pot when she was pregnant so I kinda turned out all "X-Men" and sh*t.

[Sumac]

Left pushes for stuff, because, they think it is "counter-cultural", but in reality it is anti-logic and, in some, cases, anti-humane.

They are just dumb zealots at this point. They are ready to shoot their nuts off, if it make the other side angry or sad. It is a stance of immature capricious kid.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Prowler

Wait what? What do they mean by "dismantling the nuclear family"? Isn't that the problem of a lot of black people living in poverty in the US? The fact they often live in single mum homes? So why is BLM trying to make the problem worse?

I think the general idea is that because a disproportional amount of black children grow up in broken homes, or without a father figure, we should then get rid of and discourage the entire idea of a mom and a dad at home for all children, so that the former is the norm and not an oddity/frowned upon and not indicative of "systemic racism" anymore. This will somehow lead to less black people taking up a life of crime, and so on.

But, as this is truly crazy, even evil thinking, I'm not 100% sure.

[ChosenOne]

So... How long until Dems push for a new $20 bill with Floyd's face on it?

Originally Posted by Zachatello00

I just want you to know that I laughed out loud, very hard at this.

Thank you! May the odds be never in Dominion Voting Systems' favor!

Originally Posted by Prowler

Yes. It does seem like your politics are more similat to sports rivalries than actual politics. I wonder if it's due to you having bipartisan system. Your other political parties are too small and insignificant to count.

In most other democratic nations there's several different parties. And whole there's always 2 or 3 bigger owns that tend to win most elections, medium and smaller sized parties can get some power by forming coalitions with the larger parties.

I dunno if it's so practical for USA to essentially have two political parties and anyone with political aspiritons having to decide between those two only. How did your system turn out so bipartisan anyway? It's almost like they're more like two major rival companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi instead of simply political parties.

Let's be real, when has that ever happened here? It's always either PS or PSD in power. We have just as much of a bipartisan system as America.

[Leo656]

Ahhhh, F*CK, are you another one'a them Portuguese, fella?

I was sure we had a strict One'A You's limit around this place.

Now you and Prowler are gonna have to play Razor Tag to see who gets to stay on the island. OR, failing that, whoever composes the best filthy limerick can stay. In the event of a tie, the winner will be decided by who can present the most convincing argument about why Fluttershy is better than Rarity.

I'm sorry. It's gonna be 38 hours soon since I've slept, and I've suddenly gained the ability to taste colors and hear yogurt. I'm probably not making much sense, but that's because the President of the Boxed Wine and Paper Clips Foundation put a wiretap on my phone. I'm told "That's how they get ya", but I happen to know that that's bullsh*t. I know for a FACT that squirrels in the drinking water are in fact how they ACTUALLY get you. Lucky for me, I already have radar so that bullsh*t isn't gonna work on me.

Anyways yeah you guys figure out which one of the Portuguese guys gets to live and come find me later. Don't forget, it's like SUPER important.

[1987]

yup, that’s exactly what happened. so much race baiting propaganda and protests and riots by the mob, and threats to release the names and addresses of the jurors. mob rule pretty much decided the verdict on the george floyd case. the same group of people also were protesting the 2020 election audit court cases, why else would all those courts “throw out” the court cases without even looking at the evidence? they were probably scared for their life. interesting how there is some kind of audit going on now in arizona and democrats are doing everything in their power to stop it.

also interesting how blm insurrectionists stormed the capitol in oklahoma this week to protest the new “anti-riot” laws that were passed, and gets very minimal media coverage:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/blm-prote...ng-transgender

of course it would be considered “racist” to condemn these actions by blm. they have every right to block traffic and terrorize people, right??? unfu**ngbelievable the clown world we live in now. wrong is right and right is wrong. blm and antifa terrorists are still out there harassing customers at outdoor dining restaurants, they want to destroy small businesses and empower the big corporations. terrorist groups that go around terrorizing innocent people and blocking traffic deserve to get their a$$ run over (sorry not sorry). all this crazy sh*t going on now is just distractions to what the elite globalists are really doing behind the scenes.

honestly though i feel it’s all just media hype and that most people are not really on board with this radical anti-american agenda. people have blm signs on their businesses now cause they are terrorized by what they see blm doing all over the country in democrat run cities. democrats love criminals. also neighborhoods where every house has a blm lawn sign, imagine being the one house on the block without a blm sign....NAZI!!!!

[ChosenOne]

Originally Posted by Leo656

OR, failing that, whoever composes the best filthy limerick can stay.

A'ight, here's my entry:

There once was a senile puppet named Joe
Whose wits and speech were equally slow
But Arizona held an audit
The uniparty said "F*ck it!"
And he was replaced by a skanky old hoe

How'd I do?

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

At the very LEAST a kid needs to grow up in a two-income household for the simple fact of stability. But a lot of people much smarter and better-paid than I am can lecture at length about all the balancing influence that a kid with two parents is going to grow up getting, versus someone with only one parent. And while I personally don't have any problem whatsoever with gay marriage, or gay couples raising kids, in THEORY - a lot of "experts" also strongly suggest that kids benefit from having both a Male and Female perspective during their formative years. Ultimately, the MOST important thing is always going to be that the kid grows up in a stable, supportive, and loving environment, and that trumps having a Mom and a Dad or two of either, in and of itself, BUT... the jury's still out on what kind of long-term effects kids raised under same-sex parents will have on a mass scale, and a lot of studies do suggest that having a Mom and a Dad can nurture kids into generally becoming more balanced and well-rounded people. Some reports suggest that kids raised with two Moms grow up with a strong anti-male bias, for example, or that kids raised by same-sex parents might be "pressured" either overtly or subconsciously to be homosexual themselves; who actually knows if that's true, but for some it's a cause of concern. And the fact is, we honestly DON'T know yet.

So yeah, in a society where divorce is rampant, women are encouraged to raise kids out of wedlock for the sake of proving that she's a "strong, independent woman" (regardless of how it affects the kid), and same-sex couples are raising kids in unprecedented numbers (and again, we really don't know what if any effect that's ultimately going to have on the kids they raise, if any effect at all, because it's still rather uncharted territory)... is it any wonder at all that people on the left-leaning side of things state that "breaking down the traditional family unit" is of primary importance? They'll say it's about "combating prejudice", but the truth is, it's about Vested Self-Interest.

Now, to be clear, people should be free to live however they want to, in general, but I think adding kids to the situation complicates that a bit. Kids are easily-manipulated, they pick up on cues from the people raising them, and they tend to adopt the traits and behaviors of their parents whether they mean to, want to, or not. These are facts. Just like it's a fact that kids raised in single-parent households, statistically, grow up poorer, do worse in school, act out more, have more anger issues, get involved with drugs at younger ages, have a harder time finding good jobs once they're in the workforce, have more problems with the law as adults, and earn less income over a lifetime. Now, that's obviously a broad general statement that won't apply to every single individual, but over 70 years of data backs that up. And that's just for kids raised in single-parent households; as for The Other Stuff... we really just plain don't know yet.

What we do know at the absolute least is that kids need two parents to have the objective best chance at "making it". It's irresponsible and flat-out wrong to imply otherwise. But that goes against the lifestyle a lot of people on the Left choose to live, so naturally, they want to "disprove" that theory by conducting a massive social experiment. "Dissolve the traditional family unit." Serves them well individually, but it's bad for Society as a whole.

I don't want to get too personal on here, but I'll just say that I grew up with two parents. My home environment as a child was...not great. It was dysfunctional at best, and abusive at worst, depending on circumstances. Both of my parents were...not great, I'll just say. Monetary-wise, we did okay. Not rich, but not poor. Still, I'd say my upbringing was not awesome at all. I've had people tell me I'm lucky to have grown up with both parents, and no divorce (though my parents did divorce after I turned 1. I still don't feel very blessed. I feel like having a loving environment is more important than having two parents present, even if it means being raised by one parent or in some sort of alternative parenting situation (gay couple, adoptive couple etc). It's a very complex situation, and honestly, I think it's rare for kids to grow up in a 100% completely normal, supportive household nowadays.

[Prowler]

I grew up with my mother and grandmother. My father died around the time I was born.

My childhood was still good and we had a normal middle class life. Could be because my mother was a teacher, so her job security was never in jeopardy. Plus teachers in the public school system here make more money the older they get.

But yeah, I was probably more of an exception to the rule if anything. Obviously two parents are the ideal for kids on average. And being part of a single parent household when you live in the ghetto or a poor part of town is gönne make things a lot harder for you.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by superstaff

I don't want to get too personal on here, but I'll just say that I grew up with two parents. My home environment as a child was...not great. It was dysfunctional at best, and abusive at worst, depending on circumstances. Both of my parents were...not great, I'll just say. Monetary-wise, we did okay. Not rich, but not poor. Still, I'd say my upbringing was not awesome at all. I've had people tell me I'm lucky to have grown up with both parents, and no divorce (though my parents did divorce after I turned 1. I still don't feel very blessed. I feel like having a loving environment is more important than having two parents present, even if it means being raised by one parent or in some sort of alternative parenting situation (gay couple, adoptive couple etc). It's a very complex situation, and honestly, I think it's rare for kids to grow up in a 100% completely normal, supportive household nowadays.

No, I get that, I had two parents until I was 14 and they both smoked crack so that wasn't very stable at all.

Obviously, there are individual outliers to any situation.

However, statistically-speaking: Two parents, both working, and optimally creating a caring and supportive environment is still the BEST objective environment in which to raise a child.

Obviously there are a lot of variables there, but when all things line up as they should then that kid is still going to get a better head start than one raised by a single parent working two jobs, or whatever.

Obviously a kid raised by two parents in which one (or both) are complete screw-ups isn't going to have that same "head start", and in fact might fall behind a kid raised by one parent who did their best.

But I wasn't really speaking towards the variables, I was speaking to what's Optimal. "Optimal" implies all parts of the scenario functioning as intended. Which in turn implies both parents working, sober, and invested in their child's well-being.

That remains the Best Possible Scenario, even if many times people fail to uphold that ideal. It also doesn't imply that kids raised outside of "ideal" parameters still can't grow up to be well-functioning and achieve. It simply points out what works Best, with the best long-term potential for success.

[Andrew NDB]

Sh**. My mom was old school Colombia. Meaning, smacking the crap out of me every time I did bad. She immigrated here legally and all after many years of woe and then afterward fought for and won her citizenship and even got in the Seattle Times front page with her crazy hat (like, seriously, I can post it right now).

Though... had I not had a dad? My mom was and is a little lady. She is like 4 foot 9". Maybe. Without the threat of my dad to actually mete out real punishment when I was f***ing around (and oh, I did) and my mom wasn't satisfied... I'd probably have laughed her away, honestly. God knows I tried to. Seriously, I'd have been like, "Screw you, I'm hanging with these apparently cool friends" and that would have been the worst thing ever for me.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I was a real "Can't tell me sh*t" kinda kid. Especially because my parents were such bad role models. I was always like, "You guys are in jail half the time, you ain't telling me a goddamn thing." They were both pretty abusive, which only got worse as I got older and they got worse and worse with the drugs (in my Mom's case, drugs and alcohol). I'm not exactly proud of it but I had to knock out either of them more than once. I had a fistfight with my Mom just a few months before she died. I was getting into brawls with my Dad until I was around 25.

I'm really only a good person with a strong moral compass because I chose to be. It certainly had nothing to do with how I was raised. Most kids in my town with an upbringing similar to mine spent their whole lives in and out of jail, got hooked on drugs, sh*t like that. A few of 'em are dead. As corny as it sounds, as a kid I just took the stuff I learned from Superman and He-Man really, really seriously and that's honestly why I never took the "wrong path". I definitely could've; most did, and there was nothing stopping me. I just didn't want to. I've even had counselors and therapists remark that "You're pretty much one of the only people to come out of your type of upbringing and end up making the right choice; most just give up." So even in spite of all that happened, I do take pride in the fact that I didn't fall like so many others before me and since have.

So yeah, it's not as simple as "Two parents = Good Kid, Happy Life". Not at all. Other things within that situation also have to function as nature and society intended.

But meanwhile, there's my Godparents (one of whom is my much older cousin, and her husband was one of my Dad's friends). Got sober when they had kids. Always worked, made good money. Moderate discipline, like not harsh but the kids got spanked or slapped when necessary. Sent their kids to "good" schools. Did things together as a family often. Both their kids turned out great, and their lives are about a THOUSAND times better than mine. The daughter kind of went through a "wild patch" in her teens doing drugs and sh*t but she eventually grew out of it; she has her own kids now and she's doing fine, although she recently divorced the kid's Dad and I think she's with a new guy now.

So yeah, my own family is a pretty stark example of how the "Two-Parent Unit" can go either Perfectly Right or Horribly Wrong, depending on a number of variables. But when it Works, it works better than all alternatives. That's simply an objective fact.

[1987]

let the 2022 race wars begin!

we’ve been seeing an uptick in racist narratives and race motivated white supremacist terror attacks lately.

shifting gears again from covid to racism. the new world order is at it again. they need riots to steal the elections again.

im afraid we may see more and more of this leading up to the midterms and 2024 elections, as we’ve seen in recent history. by now we’ve seen how the new world order operates and it looks like they’re at it again with the racist narratives.

[Andrew NDB]

That can't be true. Biden's campaign said he was going to unify everybody.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by 1987

let the 2022 race wars begin!

we’ve been seeing an uptick in racist narratives and race motivated white supremacist terror attacks lately.

shifting gears again from covid to racism. the new world order is at it again. they need riots to steal the elections again.

im afraid we may see more and more of this leading up to the midterms and 2024 elections, as we’ve seen in recent history. by now we’ve seen how the new world order operates and it looks like they’re at it again with the racist narratives.

Can you shut up with your lunatic fantasies about Reptiloids from Nibiru trying to probe you in the ass?
Its neither smart of funny.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Can you shut up with your lunatic fantasies about Reptiloids from Nibiru trying to probe you in the ass?
Its neither smart of funny.

The thing is, I can agree that there are forces at play that are attempting to manipulate the masses with all the political discord going on in the US, and around the world, really. I think a lot of politicians are profiting, both figuratively and literally, over things like riots, vaccine mandates, etc. I think most people here can agree that something is...up. I don't really trust that the government (or the media or Hollywood celebrities) has our best interests at heart, and are instead seeking more control out of the citizenry. I think this explains a lot of the 'woke' propaganda being pushed as well, it's an attempt at manipulating, controlling, and shaping a narrative they want to make reality.

I think 1987 is...going too far with this concept, and injecting a lot of fantasy into it. His posts are almost gleeful about the idea of the governments coming together to screw us all over, content that there's a secret organization out to "get us". That's one of the things I dislike about conspiracy theorists, they just let these delusions fester, and seem to delight in the notion that there's a race war coming or that there's a NWO that's going to crush humanity. Reptile Mutants are also just... Ugh. This is a TMNT forum, so I guess ideas that mutants are real is...a theory. But he shouldn't be shocked that people are going to look at his comments, and think he's a Looney Toon.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Can you shut up with your lunatic fantasies about Reptiloids from Nibiru trying to probe you in the ass?
Its neither smart of funny.

I was resisting asking in another of his new threads when it will devolve into insisting it was aliens, but you said it better.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Can you shut up with your lunatic fantasies about Reptiloids from Nibiru trying to probe you in the ass?
Its neither smart or funny.

Neither smart, or funny.... but also not entirely wrong.

Remember there was a time when everyone thought 'naw, they'll never do forced mandates' 'variants to ensure boosters? that's tin foil hat stuff'.

[Sumac]

One thing is not trusting governments - another, as superstaff had said, being gleeful about some insane conspiracy existing to solely destroy everyone.

Also, never attribute to maliciousness something, which can be explained with plain stupidity.

In general, conspiracy nuts are o better than rabid SJWs or any other type of zealots.