OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

such an eloquent reply. some really make the following true >>>>>> "there is a >>>

i do agree->No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

so we all agree that saying "unarmed teen" means nothing and adds nothing to the narrative.

imo if a teen has a perpencity for violence, whether armed or unarmed both teens (will be) dangerous.

however

>>>>> or >>>>> = both situations are dangerous to the victim(s).

unnerstand?

[Edited 9/24/15 18:02pm]

free2bfreeda said:

imo if a teen has a perpencity for violence, whether armed or unarmed both teens (will be) dangerous.

however

>>>>> or >>>>> = both situations are dangerous to the victim(s).

unnerstand?

[Edited 9/24/15 18:02pm]

"your perception may not be my reality" is an odd statement. For one that is Aporva's perception. As such i wounder if Aporva understand that?

I wonder if you do? Now I agree that seems likely, as long as you accept that many of what you believe may not be true. But it comes off as assuming that one's reality my not be the same as what is true.

But as there must be truth then there is a reality and that reality has nothing to do with one's Perception.

free2bfreeda said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so we all agree that saying "unarmed teen" means nothing and adds nothing to the narrative.

if no one disputes it then saying it is not material to the case and thus adds nothing. it is an irrelevant fact.

yes or no?

"when the color of yo skin is considered a weapon, you are always armed and dangerous..." (i can't remember who said that)

http://afro.com/baltimore-county-black-man-fatally-shot-by-maryland-officers-unarmed-but-aggressive/

i unnastand that a crime accurred,

i unnastand that po leece have a job to do.

i unnastand that po leece still are bein trained with a negative look toward a group of folks.

(the reason that i know that is because of the number of times "unarmed and dangerous"

befalls that group of people who's ages go allaways down to ten or twelve)

i unnastand, i really do....

what i don't unnastand is the publics reaction to findin these things out and NOT bein able

to clearly see that this is a prollum.... when there is a group of folks that can point rifles at law enforcement without incident.. how can cops all over the country only feel threatened (to the point of killin) by this certain group.... are we automatic cop killers???

"he ain't have a gun BUT he coulda had a gun... i was in fear of my life... he was aggressive... she ain't put her cig out... i thought..." and all these appear to be acceptable reasons for po leece to murder folks on the spot....

look at yo conditionin (done by me over a period of time)

i ain't have to use a word one time and you know who that group is... you know it, and still its acceptable and you can't figga out why folks look down on yo oppinion...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

such an eloquent reply. some really make the following true >>>>>> "there is a >>>

i do agree->No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

so we all agree that saying "unarmed teen" means nothing and adds nothing to the narrative.

I think we all agree that this thread adds NOTHING to the narrative.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

if no one disputes it then saying it is not material to the case and thus adds nothing. it is an irrelevant fact.

yes or no?

yes or no? to answer the question would a classic oxymoron. much like this thread

[Edited 9/24/15 20:47pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

imo if a teen has a perpencity for violence, whether armed or unarmed both teens (will be) dangerous.

however

>>>>> or >>>>> = both situations are dangerous to the victim(s).

unnerstand?

[Edited 9/24/15 18:02pm]

"your perception may not be my reality" is an odd statement. For one that is Aporva's perception. As such i wounder if Aporva understand that?

I wonder if you do? Now I agree that seems likely, as long as you accept that many of what you believe may not be true. But it comes off as assuming that one's reality my not be the same as what is true.

But as there must be truth then there is a reality and that reality has nothing to do with one's Perception.

please stop

[Snip - luv4u]

BombSquad said:

[Snip - luv4u]

have a nice day BombSquad and a better weekend.

free2bfreeda said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

"your perception may not be my reality" is an odd statement. For one that is Aporva's perception. As such i wounder if Aporva understand that?

I wonder if you do? Now I agree that seems likely, as long as you accept that many of what you believe may not be true. But it comes off as assuming that one's reality my not be the same as what is true.

But as there must be truth then there is a reality and that reality has nothing to do with one's Perception.

please stop

what do not (other than my typos) agree with? Do you think that one's reality is tied to what they believe? Truth is like the honey badger: it doesn't care.

So this Aporva person may or may not accept that their reality is not necessarly the same as their perception.

As I said I think that statement is likely true. But that is not to say that if someone's perception is true that is not the same as another person's reality.

it is like Knowlage: a justifed true belife free of consindence. Just becasue we belife something is not the same as it being true much less knowing it.

babynoz said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so we all agree that saying "unarmed teen" means nothing and adds nothing to the narrative.

I think we all agree that this thread adds NOTHING to the narrative.

then you are free to NOT take part.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

free2bfreeda said:

please stop

what do not (other than my typos) agree with? Do you think that one's reality is tied to what they believe? Truth is like the honey badger: it doesn't care.

So this Aporva person may or may not accept that their reality is not necessarly the same as their perception.

As I said I think that statement is likely true. But that is not to say that if someone's perception is true that is not the same as another person's reality.

it is like Knowlage: a justifed true belife free of consindence. Just becasue we belife something is not the same as it being true much less knowing it.

give it try.

What? I wouldn't want to miss another one of your many thread fails, now would I?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

babynoz said:

I think we all agree that this thread adds NOTHING to the narrative.

then you are free to NOT take part.

babynoz said:

What? I wouldn't want to miss another one of your many thread fails, now would I?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

then you are free to NOT take part.

I am thinking you do not know the meaing of fail... this is a hot topic...

free2bfreeda said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what do not (other than my typos) agree with? Do you think that one's reality is tied to what they believe? Truth is like the honey badger: it doesn't care.

So this Aporva person may or may not accept that their reality is not necessarly the same as their perception.

As I said I think that statement is likely true. But that is not to say that if someone's perception is true that is not the same as another person's reality.

it is like Knowlage: a justifed true belife free of consindence. Just becasue we belife something is not the same as it being true much less knowing it.

give it try.

irony

You mean a hot mess? Don't forget to wear gloves when your ass is being handed to you. You are the one who's been exposed as having an agenda??

OnlyNDaUsa said:

babynoz said:

What? I wouldn't want to miss another one of your many thread fails, now would I?

I am thinking you do not know the meaing of fail... this is a hot topic...

babynoz said:

You mean a hot mess? Don't forget to wear gloves when your ass is being handed to you. You are the one who's been exposed as having an agenda??

if that ever happens i will keep that in mind

babynoz said:

You mean a hot mess? Don't forget to wear gloves when your ass is being handed to you. You are the one who's been exposed as having an agenda??

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am thinking you do not know the meaing of fail... this is a hot topic...

This thread is mostly filled w/ posts saying the topic is nonsense.

I vote for Hot Mess.

JustErin said:

3rdeyedude said:

There have been plenty of cases where the media here in the U.S. has used "unarmed teen" for no other reason than to boost their ratings by getting you to watch and/or listen to their report. It is shock value and nothing else. I thought it was a bit ironic to use it as a thread title. It has almost 1000 views so I guess it worked. Also, I mentioned Baltimore because the school is right near the center of the Freddy Gray arrest that got so much attention. I believe "unarmed teen" was also used in that case (even though he had a knife). Whether you like it or not, some of these so called "unarmed teens" could probably fuck you up with their bare hands. I am not speaking about all cases either. Just a select few that have gotten national attention.

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

Schooling you about the U.S. media that fucks with your mind. Are you even from here? The point is don't believe everything the media says. Especially in the U.S. That's the fucking point. I think it is ironic that this thread has so many views. Hmmmmm....could it be the thread title? Was the OP just fucking with morons who buy the shit the media sells them? You watch tv and pay attention when the headline includes "unarmed teen" just like you click on this thread that says "unarmed teen". See the connection there? Do we need to fucking spell it out for you? And nothing upsets me more than stupidity. Carry on.

3rdeyedude said:

JustErin said:

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

Schooling you about the U.S. media that fucks with your mind. Are you even from here? The point is don't believe everything the media says. Especially in the U.S. That's the fucking point. I think it is ironic that this thread has so many views. Hmmmmm....could it be the thread title? Was the OP just fucking with morons who buy the shit the media sells them? You watch tv and pay attention when the headline includes "unarmed teen" just like you click on this thread that says "unarmed teen". See the connection there? Do we need to fucking spell it out for you? And nothing upsets me more than stupidity. Carry on.

yet, this is one of the few times that this kinda thing gets to GD,

however, if one was to visit P&R it's just a continuation of the tripe

they have started at any given time i can remember. and AND the subjects

always carry a bit of shadin... and latches to havin character issues...

the best thing about them is THEY AIN'T ME

OnlyNDaUsa said:

burtaly beats a classmate nearly to death...

http://www.wbaltv.com/new...l/35322838

this is nothing less than attempted murder. He needs life in prison. Thankfully they are charging him as an adult!

So keep this brutally in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as harmless.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

burtaly beats a classmate nearly to death...

http://www.wbaltv.com/new...l/35322838

this is nothing less than attempted murder. He needs life in prison. Thankfully they are charging him as an adult!

So keep this brutally in mind next time someone with a political agenda attempts to paint an unarmed teen as harmless.

finally get the picture. it's about a continuing to attempt to neuter, de-qualify and invalidate certain groups/classes by drawing a sociological paralellogram on the two situations. to make such correction or allowance in as will reduce to a common standard of comparison.

thus here is created the ongoing a b tireless master minded quest= the true depiction of self inflated quasi-superior chauvinism.

nothing less

3rdeyedude said:

JustErin said:

That is nothing more than your opinion. They are simply stating a fact - that a teen was not carrying a weapon. Your interpretation on their motivation in stating a fact is irrelevant. This is not a new way of reporting, they always state the facts. You really think that a headline that says, "Cop shoots teen" will invoke less of a response? Do you want it to? Should they also omit that the person shot was a teen? Would that invoke even less of a response? Do you want it to?

Going by the responses I constantly see on here it appears that the real problem you and the OP are having in reporting these facts is that it can (and often does) then open a door to a discussion on something that somehow upsets you...but that will continue to happen whether YOU like it or not.

This thread has nothing to do with letting us all know that a teenager could "fuck you up" with their bare hands, because no one has ever stated anything contrary to this. Why do you and the OP keep stating this? You think you're schooling me on who can still be a threat without a weapon? GTFO with that shit.

I will say it again, 3 more times, since it's been said over and over and over on here but you and the OP keep ignoring it.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

No one disputes that an unarmed teen could be dangerous.

That said, it does not matter what someone could do, it matters what they did do and this is what people wish to discuss.

Schooling you about the U.S. media that fucks with your mind. Are you even from here? The point is don't believe everything the media says. Especially in the U.S. That's the fucking point. I think it is ironic that this thread has so many views. Hmmmmm....could it be the thread title? Was the OP just fucking with morons who buy the shit the media sells them? You watch tv and pay attention when the headline includes "unarmed teen" just like you click on this thread that says "unarmed teen". See the connection there? Do we need to fucking spell it out for you? And nothing upsets me more than stupidity. Carry on.

Newsflash, you don't have to actually live in the US to see American media. I know it's hard for Americans like you to understand the world outside your country.

It's hilarious to me that you're telling me to not believe everything the media says. Like, that's always the go to line that people who have zero argument say. First off, you have no clue where I get my news from or what I believe or do not believe and secondly, and even more hilarious, is you have no problem citing news pieces that fit your narrative.

Please...and you want to talk about stupidity.

JustErin said:

3rdeyedude said:

Schooling you about the U.S. media that fucks with your mind. Are you even from here? The point is don't believe everything the media says. Especially in the U.S. That's the fucking point. I think it is ironic that this thread has so many views. Hmmmmm....could it be the thread title? Was the OP just fucking with morons who buy the shit the media sells them? You watch tv and pay attention when the headline includes "unarmed teen" just like you click on this thread that says "unarmed teen". See the connection there? Do we need to fucking spell it out for you? And nothing upsets me more than stupidity. Carry on.

Newsflash, you don't have to actually live in the US to see American media. I know it's hard for Americans like you to understand the world outside your country.

It's hilarious to me that you're telling me to not believe everything the media says. Like, that's always the go to line that people who have zero argument say. First off, you have no clue where I get my news from or what I believe or do not believe and secondly, and even more hilarious, is you have no problem citing news pieces that fit your narrative.

Please...and you want to talk about stupidity.

Oh yeah, like you undertand our country........lol......it is clear from your posts in this thread that you don't get it. And now you are getting all butthurt because of it. Go ahead and get back to watching tv now and believing every stupid fucking thing that you see. Sheep will be sheep.

3rdeyedude said:

JustErin said:

Newsflash, you don't have to actually live in the US to see American media. I know it's hard for Americans like you to understand the world outside your country.

It's hilarious to me that you're telling me to not believe everything the media says. Like, that's always the go to line that people who have zero argument say. First off, you have no clue where I get my news from or what I believe or do not believe and secondly, and even more hilarious, is you have no problem citing news pieces that fit your narrative.

Please...and you want to talk about stupidity.

Oh yeah, like you undertand our country........lol......it is clear from your posts in this thread that you don't get it. And now you are getting all butthurt because of it. Go ahead and get back to watching tv now and believing every stupid fucking thing that you see. Sheep will be sheep.

Your post makes zero sense. I guess it was just thrown together in an attempt (albeit feeble) to get the final word.

No doubt you'll just try again after this response.

Yikes.