Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. 41
  2. 26
  3. 25
  4. 20
  5. 16
  6. 13
  7. 12
  8. 8
  9. 8
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 4
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50.  @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