Jump to content

TDD123

Resident
  • Content Count

    2,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by TDD123

  1. 3 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Why are you continually trying to make it seem I am saying something different to what I have already written in black and white?

    Please read an  entire post and in context before posting and you may, just may alleviate the last 10 posts between us of me trying to say one thing and you claiming I said another.

    Like I said before : I still remain, perhaps mistakingly, under the impression you are making a case for "If the left can be accused of this, the right should not be accused of .. " which is my subjective opinion of your entries.

    Let's agree to disagree in general.

    • Like 2
  2. 5 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    If he is not charged equally then fairness of the justice system is broken in the USA, is skewed to favouritism against a specific ideology and completely against the democratic principles of fairness, freedom and liberty.

    Seriously Drayke ? He should be equally condemned and haunted by justice like say the folks who pulled in the policeman into the crowd of rioters and KILLED him ? Equally so ? It's only fair when it's on the same priority standard ?

    Now we have gotten to a point where I no longer wish to debate you.

     

    • Like 4
  3. 7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Wait what? I am confused. Who are you talking about here? Did you even read my post or that news article?

    Yes, Drayke, I do.

    7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    I am talking about a left wing Antifa linked rioter that gained entry into congress as part of the riots and that he should be charged with the same trespassing laws as the right wing rioters. As such if he is not then it shows discrimination against a specific political faction. That is what I wrote many posts ago.

    With mentioning all of this by you, I still remain under the impression you are making a 'whataboutism' in favor of recent acts committed by the right, so the riots can be justified and justifies Trump's 'objection' and methods.

    I agree this is purely subjective from my side.

    7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    From your post just now I now know you didn't even read my first post with the link and just blindly replied based on me mentioning a conspiracy theory about Trump.

    Good grief. Why do I bother. I'm out.

    Sorry you feel this way. Thanks for debating.

  4. 1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

    No idea what FUD is. Though I can assume what it means.

    Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. I thought you were familiar with the expression. My bad.

    4 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    He will and it Is? 'Cause I couldn't find anything on him being arrested, or being charged only the newspapers claiming that he could face charges (which was their assumption) even though law officials haven't stated as such. Where is his wanted picture from the FBI?

    I mean I hope he does for the fairness of justice, but I have my doubts.

    I have less doubts. He cannot be accused legally yet while being in office, but I'm convinced in time he will have to face several charges, including the incitement.

    Time will tell.

  5. 7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    So what is your point? That article is all lies?

    I categorise it as FUD, yes.

    7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    As to the point I made about conspiracy theories of which I assume was the point of your useless post, what of it?

    David Pakman makes the arguments I wanted to make much more eloquent. Something tells me you haven't listened, but that's cool : I do not expect you to.

    7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    I never claimed the conspiracy theories were founded, just that (an) Antifa was there as evidenced by him being there and that he should be charged just like all of those who gained entry into the building illegally.

    If so that still makes him a minority in a group of criminals that were mostly right winged. The 'bad apples must have been leftist' approach, also explained by David, is just another way of 'whataboutism' around the fact that Trump committed a fellony.

    7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    Whether he will be charged is yet to be seen, which was also my point.

    True. But he will be held accountable and that process is already happening.

    • Like 2
  6. 4 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

    But again that is not honest framing is it, that's not what they're doing, they are obstructing it because they think that the outcome isn't the genuine will of the people, they think it was rigged.

    Then they could have peacefully protested outside of the Capitol and not obstruct the meeting of Congress that was ongoing. Barging into the Capitol, at said date and time,  is disrupting the democratic process their own 'leader' signed for and should guarantee : a peaceful transition of power.

    • Like 3
  7. 5 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

    You describe one side as fighting against an institutionally sponsored wrong, but describe the other side as fighting an institution which can 'do no wrong'.

    No. I describe one side as protesting, initially peacefully, against an organisation which kills people regardless of individual circumstance,  while describing the other as obstructing the genuine outcome of the will of the majority of the people.

    No matter how you try to 'whataboutism' : the only intend of Trump and his supporters was to stop the outcome of an honest result.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
  8. 5 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

    I find this sentence to be intellectually dishonest. You paint it as good vs evil but the reality is not like that at all.

    Rioting against institutionalized murder : A march for awareness of people being killed by an organised system.

    Rioting against democracy ( electoral result ) : Obstruction of electoral acknowledgement confirmed in court.

    I agree with Cinos.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  9. 18 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

     There is no self reflection, self discipline, an 'I can do no wrong' mentality.

    That is exactly what the POTUS is being, justified in my opinion, accused of as we speak.  His political career is over.

    And I fully agree. I don't care if he commits political suicide : he should no longer pull others along with his intend to disrupt the outcome of the election which has been officially confirmed. All objections have been found dismissable by the Supreme Court. There is no presentable proof.

    He should relent and let go, like his followers.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  10. 16 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    :EDIT:

    This is straight from AWS Acceptable Use Policy

     

    Afaik these policies relate to real world activities with real world people. I think American law differentiates between real world and virtual, but not sure.

    They might fall back on this though should they want to get rid of 'us'. But again .. that's always been a risk for whatever reason. I think the move is more technical than moral. The system doesn't give a crap about what data we shove in either direction or in what form and the service contract not that much either.

    I mean it's not that SL is going to be all over Amazon.com and in everyone's face.

  11. 6 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

    If one country demands the removal you can guarantee that they will do it across all regions.

    Afaik my country will hold ME responsible for such activities in SL. In my regions where I reside.

    It should and will hold LL responsible if it is forcefed upon me.

     

  12. 9 minutes ago, Gavin Hird said:

    The question is not how the public in general reacts to it, the question is how corporate Amazon views it in terms of potential media and market valuation backlash.

    Of course that has always been the case since the anouncement of the move to AWS. What kind of scandal would be required though ? SL is beyond that stage in the public eye.

    9 minutes ago, Gavin Hird said:

    The fact is more that SL is completely obscured from 99.9999% of the population so nobody knows.

    Do you mean public presentation or avatar conduct ? 99.9999 % of the population has the latter in their own hands.

  13. 8 minutes ago, Gavin Hird said:

    Naw, you only need to make them aware of the child avatar *****

    I think SL is already 'tarnished' with that public opinion and public opinion moved on. SL survived nonetheless.

    I only have regions that forbid child avatars entirely. That's all I have to say about the matter entirely.

  14. 9 minutes ago, Lewis Luminos said:

    My concern though, is what happens if Amazon also decides that SL is an immoral hive of depravity and sex?

    Well.. first they need to stop selling the "I love P()rn" - baseballcaps and various other items themselves first. It's unlikely they'll Disneyfy themselves first and then 'hit' LL with morality issues.

     

  15. 7 minutes ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

    That reminds me of the IRC chats!

    Aye .. the good ol' days where tl:dr was but a bad dream and one-liners ruled supreme.

    8 minutes ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

    I Believe if Zuck dude has his way, he would want you to do EVERYTHING through his platform.

    Of course.  And these companies as run by him will certainly not cater to the extremist single individual or group, but to the large mostly silent crowd.

×
×
  • Create New...