1. osu!community
  2. Other
  3. Off-Topic
posted
Having an opinion is too much for the SJW, eh? :V
posted

Aurani wrote:

Having an opinion is too much for the SJW, eh? :V

I don't know if you're talking to me or Mahogany, but don't say that's what everyone would have wanted. Clearly, from what you can see, that's not true. Be against refugees as much as you want, but at least realize that this wasn't necessary and that behavior is unacceptable regardless of your opinion.
posted

Aurani wrote:

Having an opinion is too much for the SJW, eh? :V


Bitch your opinion is wrong. A person assaulted another person bc they wanted too, that's what it boils down to, You can't really justify that. To make it worse it was a refugee, someone trying to escape their old country as their country is war torn. He didn't do anything wrong, he just wants to be safe. He even has a child with him. This women sees a man running with a child and she decides to trip him. Stop trying to justify it.
posted
@Fox
I didn't even notice your post, chill your titties, lad.

As for the behaviour being unacceptable, it's only according to your standards, and your standards are formed by your own opinion on a matter, so it's entirely subjective.
My opinion is as valid as yours, Bird's, or Maho's. You simply have to accept that.

As for everyone in the world sharing your opinion about the clip, I have really nothing to say, as that would only prove your naivete.

@Ant
Your arguments make you sound like you're not above the age of 15. I politely refuse to discuss this matter with you any further.
posted
Rose quartz
posted
too bad she didnt kicked more of them
posted
@aurani
Get of your high horse, your not the fucking king you like to think you are
posted
Politely refusing to talk to you doesn't seem to work.

You can go to the local gun store, buy a shotgun and off the mongrel parents who gave birth to a defective child such as yourself. Goodbye, mutt.
posted
you're worse than the people you hate
posted
A) Weak diss
B) Generalisation
C) Not knowing the person you directed that to

Choose one, mate.

I'm beginning to think that Daddy and Bird are the only two people left here who can politely be reasoned with, or at least possess enough knowledge to not make asses out of themselves when they try discussing things.
posted
I didn't even notice your post, chill your titties, lad.

I'm perfectly calm. I guess anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must seem unreasonably mad in your eyes.

As for the behaviour being unacceptable, it's only according to your standards, and your standards are formed by your own opinion on a matter, so it's entirely subjective.
My opinion is as valid as yours, Bird's, or Maho's. You simply have to accept that.

And here I am, thinking that committing any type of senseless harm goes against common sense. I'm not even telling you to stop being against refugees because that'd be stupid and disrespectful, but at least realize that was unprofessional behavior, especially from a journalist (who are supposed to be unbiased resources).

Tell me then, why did the refugee deserve it? If you give me a good enough reason that doesn't go against the non-aggression principle and common sense, I'll consider it.

As for everyone in the world sharing your opinion about the clip, I have really nothing to say, as that would only prove your naivete.

I never even said that everyone shares my same opinion about the clip because I'm talking to someone who doesn't. That'd be contradicting myself. You, on the other hand, wrote this:

yet I'm 100% sure she just did what everyone thought about.


which is clearly not true, as you can see from the reactions you got.
posted
I love how people treat refugees as a bad word nowadays because they forget what the actual meaning of the word is
posted

FuZ wrote:

too bad she didnt kicked more of them
posted

Foxtrot wrote:

I'm perfectly calm. I guess anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must seem unreasonably mad in your eyes.

No need to continue the senseless accusations. I apologise. Your post seemed to have some charge to it, hence the comment. I directed the post before that one to Mahogany.


Foxtrot wrote:

And here I am, thinking that committing any type of senseless harm goes against common sense. I'm not even telling you to stop being against refugees because that'd be stupid and disrespectful, but at least realize that was unprofessional behavior, especially from a journalist (who are supposed to be unbiased resources).

Tell me then, why did the refugee deserve it? If you give me a good enough reason that doesn't go against the non-aggression principle and common sense, I'll consider it.

Oh no, it was absolutely a joke about her being a hero. If she was a "hero", she would've hit him square in the face and accepted the consequences, instead of tripping him and then denying it all on court. What she did was morally wrong in more than just one way.

I'm guessing you took the joke seriously after I wrote the sjw having a problem with differing opinions post, which I do stand by. Mahogany is on the other side of the spectrum, being the polar opposite of Bird, with neither thinking about what the other side might have to say about something and are always quick to blame people.

Foxtrot wrote:

I never even said that everyone shares my same opinion about the clip because I'm talking to someone who doesn't. That'd be contradicting myself.
...
which is clearly not true, as you can see from the reactions you got.

You insinuated that by denying my viewpoint. I know for a fact that many of the people I talked to after that reacted with disgust and said how she's a monster, yet would have done NOTHING to help the fellow out if they were at the scene.
The response I got here was from you, a mentally deficient child and Maho, none of who I personally know, so I can't say whether you truly stand behind that guy or the journalist, which makes your point moot.

It only comes to show just how polarised this place is. You can't have any complex opinions on any kind of matter, as you're immediately branded one thing or another.
Even IF I was on the side of the journalist (which I'm not), who has the right to question it? Pure hatred is just as valid of a reason as any. That also answers your question about me stating a valid reason for hating an individual.

Yeah, I know you're going to say how it's morally wrong to hate someone based on one of their attributes, but the entire topic is debatable. Is it really all black and white? Does someone become "evil" when the majority decides it or is it based on some kind of moral code? If so, doesn't that further prove that majority decides what the rights and wrongs are? Does that not completely shatter the objectivity of the matter in question?

It's far too complex of a topic to discuss with this kind of audience. Not until some more mature people arrive.
posted

Aurani wrote:

Politely refusing to talk to you doesn't seem to work.

You can go to the local gun store, buy a shotgun and off the mongrel parents who gave birth to a defective child such as yourself. Goodbye, mutt.

I can't wait for the day that you trip so hard that your head falls out of your ass

Mahogany wrote:

I love how people treat refugees as a bad word nowadays because they forget what the actual meaning of the word is

^
posted

Mahogany wrote:

I love how people treat refugees as a bad word nowadays because they forget what the actual meaning of the word is

How is that even relevant, Mahogany

No need to continue the senseless accusations. I apologise. Your post seemed to have some charge to it, hence the comment. I directed the post before that one to Mahogany.

I apologize, too. The last bit I wrote had unnecessary snark to it.

Oh no, it was absolutely a joke about her being a hero. If she was a "hero", she would've hit him square in the face and accepted the consequences, instead of tripping him and then denying it all on court. What she did was morally wrong in more than just one way.

Ah, that's more understandable then. Sorry for assuming that you were serious about it.

Yeah, I know you're going to say how it's morally wrong to hate someone based on one of their attributes, but the entire topic is debatable. Is it really all black and white? Does someone become "evil" when the majority decides it or is it based on some kind of moral code? If so, doesn't that further prove that majority decides what the rights and wrongs are? Does that not completely shatter the objectivity of the matter in question?


I don't believe anybody can be inherently evil, nor pure. Everyone commits good or bad actions, and sometimes a bad action is considered good by others (and vice versa). So no, it is not all black and white. What matters the most is the context of each situation, along with common sense. Is it within common sense to commit harm for no reason, purely because of hatred? I don't think so. We can't stop her from hating, but it's still immoral to cause active harm because of it. I'm not saying that the refugee is a completely good person, either, but then again we don't know what he did in his life. All we know is that in that context, he didn't do anything against her except running towards her direction; he didn't give her a *good* reason to act that way. Especially if she said it was a "mistake" and she was scared. Yeah, sure. It must have been pretty scary if she had to kick down a young girl and a man carrying a child while there were a ton of cameras and policemen around her :roll:
posted

Foxtrot wrote:

How is that even relevant, Mahogany

They're running from a living hell and being treated like shit when they arrive in the "civilized" countries.

But hey it's perfectly okay to physically assault someone if they came from a place you don't like, right?
(No, it's not okay.)
posted
That's the thing. If you and I declare her actions as immoral and against common sense, does that not mean we're simply deciding what's right based on the fact that we're in numerical advantage compared to her?
When the Nazis ordered the execution of the age-old policy of Lebensraum, the public was ecstatic and they flocked to settle in the "new German lands", even though they were fully aware of the millions of lives that had to be extinguished to make it happen. They held those killings as completely justified and morally correct, only because they were in majority.

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.
posted

Aurani wrote:

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.

look, even if she a good reason (e.g. He harassed her) that man was holding a child that looks about 7-8 years old. I don't think you can justify hurting a kid.
posted

Aurani wrote:

That's the thing. If you and I declare her actions as immoral and against common sense, does that not mean we're simply deciding what's right based on the fact that we're in numerical advantage compared to her?

Holy fucking shit
Her actions are immoral because she's causing harm to another human being how hard is this to grasp

Aurani wrote:

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Steve Stephens went and shot innocent people while literally broadcasting it himself on facebook live, so obviously he had a perfectly valid and justified reason for it, and the police shouldn't have bothered tracking him down?
Please sign in to reply.