Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
41
-
26
-
@Ye Olde Conlange Shoppe "the reason saying all lives matter is racist is because it erases the history of black oppression in America"
Nonsense. It's just a another way of affirming that every life (including black lives) matter to us, without sounding like an anti-white racist. And there's no contradiction between affirming that all lives matter and acknowledging that black people were oppressed.
"and blindly asserts that all lives are equal, when they clearly aren't."
So you claim. But so far, no one's been able to actually provide evidence that black people are being kept down by any institution, laws, etc. in America. If anything, there is more in the system to keep non-black people down, considering programs and institutions which explicitly are not available to whites.
Take George Floyd, for instance. No evidence whatsoever that it had anything to do with race. A white man named Tony Timpa died at the hands of some cops pretty much the same exact way as Floyd 10 months prior. Differences? Timpa was held down for longer, hadn't committed any crimes, and actually called the cops himself. And of course, the mainstream media didn't cover it much, nor did anyone riot even though the cops got off scot-free.
25
-
20
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonygrowley5275 "Abortion is just an alternative."
Well, it's the one alternative that results in an innocent human being dying for the sake of convenience...
"The point is the woman's individual right to decide,"
That would need to be proven, not just asserted. And so far, we have no reason to grant women the special privilege of taking an innocent life for her convenience.
"only for herself, when she give birth, or not."
Giving birth isn't the issue. The baby has been created already, and usually because of choices the woman already made.
"More than 1/2 of women who have an abortion in the US, already have a child, or children. They don't want any more, right now!"
Well she already has more. And she shouldn't be allowed to kill either of them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kishanrao936 "you’re equating a fetus with someone who is in a coma being kept alive by machines"
No, but I am pointing out that the viability argument doesn't work by using them as an example. Again, it doesn't change what they are, only their circumstances.
"You are entitled to your belief"
It's not my belief; it's common scientific fact the ultimate sign of life is brain activity. You're literally not pronounced dead until that's gone.
"but brain activity doesn’t equate to being a human being"
Having brain activity while being of the human species, yes, that makes you a human being that is alive.
"There are some that say the zygote also should be treated as a person which it is not."
It's interesting how you claim that everything I've said about what makes someone a person is mere belief, and how I have no special right to proclaim what is/isn't a person, but then go on to make strong claims about what a person is yourself.
Anyway, I would agree that a zygote isn't quite yet a live human being. But this does nothing to help the pro-abortion crowd, since they typically want the "right" to kill living human beings.
And I'm still waiting for you to distinguish in any meaningful way between a newborn and a fetus with brain activity. You've tried to draw the line using an arbitrary standard of viability, but now that that's failed you seem to have given up...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Theimmure You're right that "All Lives Matter" is a rebuttal. But it's being painted as a rebuttal to the fact that black lives matter, when it's instead a rebuttal to the implications of the Black Lives Matter movement.
"Define equality. We have it, according to what? Encoded law that many have and will continue to ignore?"
Opportunities, and when and if encoded law is ignored that can be called out more specifically (and therefore effectively) than by claiming there's this systemic racism holding black people down in general.
"Hold on a second. Success?"
No. It's not the government's job to ensure everyone has equal success, only equal opportunity.
"Resisting arrest and not committing crimes?"
Yes, that would be a great start. But sometimes (as in the case of Tony Timpa) bad cops, or bad practices, will still lead to unjustifiable deaths even if you haven't committed any crimes and indeed even called the cops yourself!
"Unjust violence and murder due to questionable behavior or practically nothing at all somehow warrants the death of a person as if it isn’t in the hands of the cop wielding the gun."
Depends on the specific case, but it often isn't a question of whether or not the person "deserved" to die.
"So I suppose anyone can feel they can stand there and tell others what would be a good start to avoid sudden death. Sounds like victim blaming."
Not until it's established that they were indeed a victim of someone else's wrongdoing (and not in any way their own).
"Apparently we can ignore who receives this treatment the most because all of a sudden we want to focus on the focus themselves rather than the race of the people who suffer from them."
The question is not, Is this happening more often to black people? The question is, Is this happening to black people because they're black? At least if you're wanting to talk about racism. If you're wanting to actually solve the problem, then the question is simply how.
2
-
@Theimmure "Perhaps you can point me to the implications that defend actual criminals that are justify apprehended."
That's a bit incoherent. But the specific implications would be that this is happening because of racism on a wide scale. And even the cases that people put up front as examples turn out not to be examples of this (e.g., George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, that guy more recently who thought it'd be a good idea to reach into a car while the cops were warning him to stop and put his hands on his head).
"There are a variety of ways to take advantage and put the other in a difficult situation. One may believe they are overcoming the odds that people claim are nonexistent when they pretend we do not live in a shady world, but it’s much more complicated to than that."
All fine and good. It is complicated and there are shady characters in power. But is there some massive oppressing force against black people in particular. So far, it doesn't look like it.
"Again, it’s not as simple as being “successful,” which is the point I made and the one you seemed to have brushed off."
I'm not even sure that's relevant to any argument I've made. But if the claim isn't that it's keeping blacks from being successful, then what is it?
"Of course it couldn’t possibly be about whether they deserved it or not."
Indeed. That's not the judgement call in the vast majority of these cases. But it's what people focus on when they're trying to be rhetorical.
"That is why you stress the details of Tony Timpa’s death. Yet in any other scenario you pretend whether they live or not is their decision,"
No, I only bring him up to highlight that this is not exclusive to members of any race.
"and not the cop that’s been granted the permission to handle a situation in many ways. You change your argument when it’s convenient."
Not at all; I'm being perfectly consistent. I'm admitting that sometimes even if no crime has been committed, someone will die at the hands of cops. But I'm also willing to acknowledge the other side to this, which you don't seem to be willing to do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kishanrao936 "first of all the moniker of pro-abortion is a stupid one"
Not at all. That is indeed the topic. I for one am against killing innocent human beings in the womb. You are for this, I take it?
"that you anti-women, misogynistic crowd"
Nothing anti-woman or misogynistic about saying someone (whether man or woman) shouldn't be allowed to kill babies for the sake of convenience. In fact, insomuch as you are OK with women doing this but not men, there's more evidence that you're anti-man than there is of me being anti-woman.
"people who support women making their own choices."
We all support this to a degree. I simply draw the line at killing innocent human beings whereas you apparently don't.
"Abortion is a medical procedure-"
Any number of horrific things can be done by someone with a medical degree. This is a very poor argument.
"you really can’t be pro or anti it- just as you can’t be pro or anti root canal."
You can be for or against both of these things.
"Our laws are based on our constitution which counts everyone who was born within its purview."
Again, that's simply irrelevant to the rightness/wrongness of an action. Hence the entire concept of amendments.
"If you think that the unborn should count as people, then pregnant women should count as two people-"
That doesn't logically follow, no. A pregnant woman is simply a person with another person in her womb.
"(they should be) allowed to claim their fetus as a dependent in their taxes."
Actually that's not a bad idea. You do have to eat more (and eat different things) and generally spend more money on taking care of both yourself and your baby while pregnant, than you would if you weren't pregnant.
"If the fetus is part of the woman’s body,"
That's exactly the premise you want people to accept blindly here. The fetus not only has their own heartbeat but their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. By no logic whatsoever is the fetus part of the woman's body, albeit he/she is connected to the woman's body temporarily.
"So ultimately your goal is to control women"
Technically any law saying "You can't kill another human being" is about control. But it's empty rhetoric to just throw that word out there, because we can agree that some laws are justified while others are not. So your issue isn't with the law being about control, it's about the "right" specifically to kill the unborn (if you're a woman).
2
-
@kishanrao936 "If you believe root canals are wrong, then don’t get one"
Obviously this is a poor argument too. We're talking about the life and death of another human being, not something the woman is doing solely to her own body.
"but if I want to get one, how does it affect you?"
It affects me to exactly the same degree it would affect me if you chose to kill (sorry, "abort") your two-year old child. All in all, this is just another red herring. Something doesn't have to affect me directly to be wrong.
"a fetus isn’t a person."
Scientifically and logically, this is an absurd claim, and you haven't given any arguments or evidence to support it. The fetus has their own heartbeat, their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. They are a human being by every definition.
"It cannot survive on its own"
Neither can a newborn baby, or most toddlers for that matter.
"you can believe anything you want that’s your right"
There you go again pretending as if society at large doesn't agree with the premise that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. At any rate, I've established why this is more than a mere belief but fact.
"our laws are based on the constitution."
Yeah again, that's irrelevant. Laws and the Constitution itself can be changed, but first people need to realize they're wrong in the first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kishanrao936 "Nobody is arguing for the right to kill living human beings."
That's literally what abortion is. The right to kill an innocent human being with its own unique genetic code, its own heartbeat, and its own independent brain activity. If you would change the standard for "living" on this topic, then you're not being scientifically consistent, as brain activity in particular is the universal sign of life (you're not pronounced dead until that's gone).
"the tucker Carlsons of the world who really don’t give a hoot about abortion but are catering to the anti-woman, pro-fascist crowd."
Lol, again, you've given no reason for me to believe that Tucker Carlson or anyone else is any of those things. But even assuming that he is, and everyone who is anti-abortion is just a woman-hater (including the women), how does that justify killing an innocent human being?
"You’re not defined as alive until you are born. That is how science and the constitution define life."
Dead wrong about the science, as I explained. As for the Constitution:
1. I would like you to provide a link to show that it denies that fetuses are living human beings.
and 2. The laws are supposed to follow ethics and reality, not the other way around. So even if the Constitution denies the reality that someone is alive before they're born, that's simply it being wrong as well as you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markjamie4002 "Just because we have not yet seen something that begins without a cause doesn't mean that there isn't something."
Ok, so for starters, none of these premises have to be proven with certainty. But Craig gives arguments in defense of this premise. He notes that it's literally worse than believing in magic, to think that the universe could come into being without either a material or efficient cause. He also asks the important question of why we don't see anything else coming into existence without a cause. If there are no causal restraints, we should be seeing this happen way more often than, literally, never.
"And completely separate to that, apparently in Quantum Mechanics things can begin to exist without a cause"
So there are two things I've heard this sort of argument for - radioactive decay and virtual particles. But both of these have causes of one or both kinds. The cause of the decay of an unstable atomic nucleus is the interaction between constituent quarks. An energy threshold is exceeded and this is what triggers decay. Now since the quarks move randomly it’s true we cannot predict when the nucleus will decay, but that doesn’t mean there is no cause of it.
Similarly, virtual particles are fluctuations of the energy in the quantum vacuum. And the vacuum is not nothing. It is a roiling sea of physical energy.
As theoretical physicist Matt Strassler puts it, “A ‘virtual particle’, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.”
So it's actually neither without efficient nor material cause. It's just not with a predictable cause, is all.
And the reason Craig sometimes rewords the premise is to avoid getting bogged down on this one topic, when most of the arguments for the causal principle as it relates to the universe, will work even if radioactive decay and virtual particles did "come into existence" with no cause.
"his second premise is even more flimsy than his first - we DON'T KNOW if the universe began to exist or not.
"
We don't have to know it with certainty, but it seems that the evidence strongly suggests a beginning. And no evidence is ever presented (at least not to Craig in these debates) for the opposite conclusion.
"Craig sets the parameters of his debates very strictly - he does not like any discussion about his premises"
Blatantly false. Indeed he specifically challenges his opponents to show which of the premises are false, saying that this is the only way to refute the arguments.
"For example, when he debated Richard Carrier, he had several idealised premises that led to his conclusion that the Resurrection was the most reasonable explanation that supported all the facts."
Makes no sense. There are two premises in the resurrection argument: One, that we have various historical facts to explain, and two, that the resurrection is the best explanation.
"Yet he became annoyed when Carrier questioned those "facts" (whether there was an empty tomb, whether 500 people saw Jesus after he was "resurrected" etc.)"
Actually, Carrier was more concerned with discussing the gospels as a whole, than dealing with any of Craig's arguments for the specific facts he said supported the resurrection. If anything, Carrier was just another example of someone dodging to talk about irrelevant matters.
"He had set the parameters to exclude any discussion of the historicity of the Bible - ridiculous given that his premises depended on it."
The facts of the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples' belief that Jesus rose from the dead most certainly do not depend on the reliability of the gospels overall (and certainly not of "The Bible" overall). To think that everything in a document must be correct or the whole thing should be thrown out is ridiculous and not in line with how historians work.
"Dawkins has no desire to be involved in that kind of farce."
Again, you are inventing excuses for Dawkins that Dawkins himself hasn't even given! You should look up the list of his excuses and start there. But of course, do know that I've looked into them ahead of you and are prepared to show how they're BS as well :P
"And really, if you're trying to convince my by saying stuff like, "So and so says they're a good debater" then your own debating skills need work as well."
No, I think Craig's skill as a debater is apparent in light of how he constructs arguments that people repeatedly fail to refute. I only mentioned Hitchens and Harris because I'm genuinely shocked that you would deny that he is at very least a challenge to anti-theists like Dawkins. You don't have to accept that Craig is right about anything, to admit he's a formidable opponent in debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 "The repercussions of the George Floyd murder (and murder it was)"
Even though he was already saying he couldn't breathe before he even laid down on the ground (which he asked to do)? I mean, don't get me wrong, the officer who put his knee on his neck after the fact should still be held accountable for it, up to and including prison. But there isn't much evidence that it was premeditated murder, which is what they're going to end up charging him with, which means he might even be acquitted (which means more senseless rioting).
"Now I personally DO NOT LIKE the style or substance of BLM messaging. I am the sort of person who stays clear of public protests."
Yeah, me, I'm fine with protesting. I'm just not fine with the faulty premise that George Floyd was killed because he was black.
"But I think you are COMPLETELY WRONG in your estimation that racism 'had nothing to do with' the death of George Floyd."
Why? Especially in this case, the two of them even knew each other personally, so there'd be more reason to suspect a personal vendetta was involved, than racism. And are you aware that this happens to white people too? Just 10 months prior to this incident, a white man named Tony Timpa died in pretty much the same exact way. He was actually held down longer by the cops, and he hadn't even committed any crimes. He had called the cops himself and ended up dying for it.
"The behavior of those cops was absolutely reprehensible, scarcely explicable EXCEPT in the context of racial animus;"
Not sure what that last part means, but I'm with you up until that point.
"Something had to be done, though 'defunding police' is a foolish slogan IMO."
Agreed.
"I would go so far as to say that one who DENIES the role of racism in this murder-"
Which you still haven't provided any evidence for whatsoever.
"must be PARTIAL in his racial attitude, or else incredibly naive."
Name-calling won't suffice as evidence, either.
"I credit you with considerable intelligence; I do not think that you are naive. So, in light of what you have just said, I don't think that my 'hat' comment was far off base."
I'm still trying to figure out what it even meant. But if you're implying that I'm racist, then I'll ask for evidence of that as well (but won't hold my breath expecting you to actually provide it).
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 "We are not speaking of accidental death, as in manslaughter."
Indeed, we are. It's going to be hard for them to argue in a court of law that the officer intended to kill Floyd, in front of all those witnesses. Heck, it's hard enough to argue that the knee was the primary cause of death in general.
"nevertheless it was motivated by hatred."
I think so too. But that doesn't = racism, either.
"I am not saying that GF's race was the ONLY factor which caused his death,"
We shouldn't be saying it was any factor, since we don't have evidence for that claim.
"but if it played NO part, then the officers' error is doubly difficult to understand."
I don't see how. Again, these two knew each other prior to the incident. And don't forget about Tony Timpa.
"If a personal vendetta was involved independently of racial bias, it may be difficult to show in court, because we are dealing with a rather stereotypical interaction that is usually interpreted in racial terms."
Therein lies the problem. It's typically interpreted in racial terms, even when there's no reason to do so.
"Now I was not familiar before with the Tony Impala case, which deserved equal attention if it happened as you describe."
It was Tony Timpa, and you can find the video here on YouTube. Might also look up Daniel Shaver and Kelly Thomas, which are even more egregious.
"However you cannot enlist that terrible misfortune to disprove racial bias in the GF case."
The burden of proof isn't on me in the first place. You're the one making the claim that race was a factor; I'm simply asking you to substantiate the claim.
"There is no necessary connection apart from police indiscretion and lack of discipline."
The point of bringing it up is simply to show that this happens to white people as well, therefore there is no reason to jump to the assumption that Floyd's death had anything to do with his skin color.
"But I don't hear any qualified expressions of sympathy for black folks who are having a hard time, whether they 'deserve' it or not."
Notice that I never said anything about George Floyd (or any other black person) "deserving" what happened to them. But why would I express sympathy for black people going through hard times in this particular conversation? This isn't about black people going through hard times; it's about one specific black man and some cops.
"But I cannot see beyond the letters of this page into your heart. It remains a closed book to me, and maybe that is just as well."
If you want to know something specific, all you gotta do is ask. It'd be a lot better than making assumptions, which you did appear to be doing earlier.
And the reason I quote you is simply to make it clear which part I'm responding to. Nothing rude about it. But I will gladly assure you that I'm not trying to be rude to you at all.
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 Nope. I'm using the same definition of "accident" as anybody else in all other contexts. But if there's something I said that you think is false, feel free to correct it.
"Do you mean that GF's death was not intended?"
I don't remember making that claim per se. But I think it will be hard for anyone to prove that death was the intended result.
"Do you mean that the officers had no control over whether GF lived or died?"
Didn't say that either. At the very least, they probably could've gotten him medical help sooner (I say "probably" because I don't recall just when that was considered, via the transcript).
"they appear to have had options to do right, which they chose not to exercise."
I'm inclined to agree. But just out of curiosity, what specifically are you saying they should've done differently/sooner?
"The question may enter in, 'was abandonment of some of their duties justified by the alleged bad character of Mr. Floyd?'"
Not at all.
"And in evaluating their professional conduct (as well as the quality of their own citizenship) it might be asked, 'did they allow emotional factors (including race prejudice)"
Where is the evidence of either?
"to interfere with proper decision-making?' At first sight, that certainly appears to be the case."
Based on what, exactly? Because again, you're making implications here and refusing to give any rationale behind them.
And yes, I see how a narrative can be twisted. But it doesn't mean it was/is being twisted here.
"And so too were the officers who watched GF die doing their jobs'"
That would depend on how quickly they called for medical assistance, primarily.
"You SEEM to be in a hurry to justify the officers' conduct."
Nope. I'm just not on board with making assumptions either way, especially given the footage and the transcript.
"If you wish to put away black radical activism from among you, you're going to have to address problems which encourage its growth."
Yeah, like the lies about widespread and systemic racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hexl702too5 "there is justification, you just don’t like it."
Not at all. Killing an innocent human being is a very serious thing. And just to avoid the temporary suffering of pregnancy isn't sufficient reason to do that.
"but you don’t have any jurisdiction over a woman’s uterus"
And you don't have any jurisdiction over someone else's life. I know the baby is geographically located in the woman's body, temporarily, but how does that grant her the right to kill him/her?
"How do you force a woman to undergo nine months of unwanted suffering, against her will?"
I wouldn't be forcing anything. There is a force of nature that brings that about, but that's put into motion by the woman. Then you end up with a human being (still inside the womb) who she wants to kill.
"What pro-lifers call a woman’s convenience, I call her life, liberty and future"
Nonsense. Unless you believe that a woman's life, liberty and future are just gone after childbirth (which of course is false). The woman goes on to live the rest of a full and happy life either way. Only person who has their life taken is the baby.
As for conservatives vs. liberals, I'd take the side of those who care about women before they're even born, over those who like to kill them or sniff them from behind 😋
1
-
1
-
@hexl702too5 "one way to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will, would be to put her into a sheep pen and detain her for nine months"
Actually that, too, would probably be bad for the baby. Besides which, there's no need to shackle or closely observe every person just because some of them are violent. That'd be like putting everyone in a sheep pen and detaining them, men included.
"should abortion be a criminal offense?"
Yes, because it is killing an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. However, I tend to think it's the "doctors" who should pay most dearly for this. A layman (e.g., a random pregnant woman) may or may not know the extent of what she's doing when she "gets an abortion" (which, even the term "abortion" itself implies that the creation of life is simply being cancelled when in fact it's already created but I digress). But a doctor knows perfectly well what's going on out of sight, what the being they're killing is. They know it's not just a "clump of cells", for example. So they're more responsible than someone who goes along with it not thoroughly understanding the science.
"what penalty should women pay?"
As it is with most crimes, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But there should be some penalty for taking an innocent life or being an accomplice in doing so.
1
-
@hexl702too5 "When a prosecutor gets a murder case, the range of penalties will not include “you get to have a good cry and go home""
Indeed! There needs to be a tangible penalty for those who kill innocent people for convenience. Yes, even if they're doing it to "help" a woman who really, really, really doesn't want to be pregnant.
"Which one is a suitable penalty for abortion?"
Again, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As it is when anyone else kills someone. It isn't always as simple as even ruling it as a murder, sometimes they call it something else and consider a different range of penalties. That's the legal system for you.
""A random woman may not know what she’s doing"
Wow…."
Wow how? It's neither false nor offensive to simply acknowledge that a layman might not understand the reality of something such as an abortion.
But see that's me giving the woman the benefit of the doubt. If she does thoroughly understand that she's agreeing to the killing an innocent human being for convenience, then she's worse than ignorant - she's evil.
"almost 50 years of you guys hollering “Murder!” and “it’s a child not a choice!”"
Idk who "you guys" is referring to; I myself wasn't always anti-abortion. As for the label of "murder", that may depend on legal definitions which makes it a fairly trivial point in either direction. And it's certainly a choice of a kind, just like I can make the choice to either befriend or be violent against someone.
"And women are STILL so ignorant!"
I disagree. I think some women are ignorant just like some men are. But others are getting smarter and wiser by the day.
"Are you accusing the pro-loafers of doing a lousy job of getting their message across?"
Actually, yes. Pro-lifers are not unlike most groups: they think it a good strategy to put their most loud and obnoxious (and often ignorant) members up front to represent them.
"I thought you were the ones with the impeccable arguments."
You think too much in terms of group identity. Some pro-lifers are right by accident. They believe that a fetus is a life because someone told them god said so, for example. If you look at the science, a fetus is a human being, but not everyone knows that.
"Maybe the doctor thinks it’s a clump of cells too!"
And maybe there's a mathematician somewhere who thinks 2 plus 2 equals 5. Anything's possible, I guess.
""The doctor should get the penalty"
wow..."
What's so shocking about holding someone accountable, for directly killing an innocent human being when they should know that's what they're doing? Again, it's highly unlikely they don't know the science behind it.
"so you wanna let a co-conspirator to murder totally off, every time!"
If you're talking about the woman, again, that would depend. Some people do really bad things entirely by accident, or with faulty information we can't reasonably blame them for believing. If you're helping me throw some "trash" away, but I've hidden a live baby in one of the trash bags without your knowing, should you get some sort of penalty there?
"Just because liberals are so good at brainwashing women into thinking they aren’t killing real babies!"
Men and women both. There's plenty of men out there saying women should be able to get these "abortions" too, and for most of the same reasons.
"Would you accept rationale for other crimes?"
Naturally. You have to determine intent as part of any case. And part of that is figuring out who knew what, and when.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1