5 ms·

> What does SJW activity actually refer to? A new kind of Socialist class warfare where Democrats now divide the population into countless different "identity"

> What does SJW activity actually refer to? A new kind of Socialist class warfare where Democrats now divide the population into countless different "identity" classes that struggle against each other. This reduces cohesion within a society and often leads to violence between these groups. > People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a person running away is not armed? I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link. > Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries. I'm not going to promote a part time worker to a high position in my company just because the person is female. I'm going to promote the person that works the hardest and has a skill set that is highly valuable to the company. > It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. > , but it won't affect the election. You contradict your previous statement. > If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election. You can believe in whatever you like, but you should be at least intellectually honest and recognise that this statement, like all of the statements in your comment isn't backed by any facts.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
>> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? >So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without >being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a >person running away is not armed? >I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link. Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger. I don't know of one is not an adequate answer, imho. The reason cops seems to shoot black teenagers who run away, and no so many white teenagers, is in my opinion due to a fear of those blacks. >> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? >Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries. Sure, some of it is women taking time off to have families. Don't we want that to be an option? Anyway, this article says you women (who are probably less likely to have taken time off than older women who had more time to have a family) are only suffering 7% lower wages. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay... >> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid >No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and >the Clinton Foundation. > , but it won't affect the election. Hillary did something stupid, but it was something stupid that the last few sec of states did too. The others didn't get investigated by congress multiple times. That's the difference, she did some stupid shit like others, but the dems didn't spend years trying to find something bad after that. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes..., including Colin Powell. I really hate that she did that, and I supported someone else in the primary. But now she's running against a truly evil, scary character, and there's just no choice. My hope would be new legislation that says all people, including secs of state will lose their security clearance if they use private email. They all want to do it to hide it from prying eyes, but I do hate it.
- Senji 10y ago
  >Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger Yes it is. Don't want to get shot? Drop on the ground and surrender.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    In general - no it isn't. Shooting someone who is retreating is illegal and doesn't fall under "Stand Your Ground" laws. If someone is retreating - unless they are shooting blindly behind themselves - you are no longer in a life-threatening situation. Use of deadly force is only authorized in life-threatening situations or when you reasonably believe your life is in danger. Even then, it may be deemed your situation wasn't life threatening or believed to be life threatening. I believe "threat to others" is included in there for certain situations. Eg. police shooting a known armed suspect who is attempting to flee and may be a danger to others. Obviously, this may vary slightly from state to state. Some states don't have castle doctrine, IIRC, and others are more strict with what falls under "Stand Your Ground" laws.
    - Senji 10y ago
      I'm talking about police. Either way. It doesn't matter, you have the gun, you make the arrest. They don't get to just flee.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        Still no, except with the exceptions I previously mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

>> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed? >So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without >being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a >person running away is not armed? >I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link. Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger. I don't know of one is not an adequate answer, imho. The reason cops seems to shoot black teenagers who run away, and no so many white teenagers, is in my opinion due to a fear of those blacks. >> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies? >Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries. Sure, some of it is women taking time off to have families. Don't we want that to be an option? Anyway, this article says you women (who are probably less likely to have taken time off than older women who had more time to have a family) are only suffering 7% lower wages. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay... >> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid >No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and >the Clinton Foundation. > , but it won't affect the election. Hillary did something stupid, but it was something stupid that the last few sec of states did too. The others didn't get investigated by congress multiple times. That's the difference, she did some stupid shit like others, but the dems didn't spend years trying to find something bad after that. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes..., including Colin Powell. I really hate that she did that, and I supported someone else in the primary. But now she's running against a truly evil, scary character, and there's just no choice. My hope would be new legislation that says all people, including secs of state will lose their security clearance if they use private email. They all want to do it to hide it from prying eyes, but I do hate it.

Senji 10y ago
>Shooting fleeing people in the back is not okay, unless there is some imminent danger Yes it is. Don't want to get shot? Drop on the ground and surrender.
- Nadya 10y ago
  In general - no it isn't. Shooting someone who is retreating is illegal and doesn't fall under "Stand Your Ground" laws. If someone is retreating - unless they are shooting blindly behind themselves - you are no longer in a life-threatening situation. Use of deadly force is only authorized in life-threatening situations or when you reasonably believe your life is in danger. Even then, it may be deemed your situation wasn't life threatening or believed to be life threatening. I believe "threat to others" is included in there for certain situations. Eg. police shooting a known armed suspect who is attempting to flee and may be a danger to others. Obviously, this may vary slightly from state to state. Some states don't have castle doctrine, IIRC, and others are more strict with what falls under "Stand Your Ground" laws.
  - Senji 10y ago
    I'm talking about police. Either way. It doesn't matter, you have the gun, you make the arrest. They don't get to just flee.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      Still no, except with the exceptions I previously mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner