29 ms·

>He walked up to them. That's not aggression. Don't be stupid. >Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? I never s

>He walked up to them. That's not aggression. Don't be stupid. >Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be there? I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has extremely negative consequences for society. At worst its downright an act of evil because you believe you should control other people based on faulty religious grounds. They were using their free time to support this position. Not really a good look for them. So I am absolutely correct in totality with my assessment of the situation. And if you think otherwise, allow me to make the claim that you need to evaluate some critical aspects of your perspective on this. If all you can say about what's being said is that it's a disagreement, then you're better of not saying anything at all. It makes you look better. I noticed you couldn't or simply decided to not address the factual negations to your assumptions. Might want to work on that.

insickness 7y ago
>> He walked up to them. > That's not aggression. Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond merely saying something. > Don't be stupid. This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult. > [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be the one with critical perspective. You've just proved my point: People wanted to believe that the Covington kids were aggressive and evil and so jumped to that conclusion without seeing the totality of what actually happened.
- ajross 7y ago
  > Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression It's literally not. That's not what "physical" means. It's... provoking. The guy with the drum was... I dunno, he was an asshole. It's certainly possible that he knew the kids were loose cannons and was hoping that by "getting in someone's face" he could get one of them to throw a punch on camera. Could be. I mean, the guy clearly had an agenda, and it probably doesn't align with your politics. But that's still not "aggression" by any reasonable definition. Stop being a snowflake.
- kadendogthing 7y ago
  I noticed you still could not address the negations to your original claims, and instead decided to call other people childish because you did not like the critique being levied at you. Definitely the sign of a mature adult. >You have no tolerance of opposing opinion If all you can say about what's being discussed is that it's a simple difference of opinion, you are far better off just not saying anything at all. You are effectively trying to debase constructive conversation and turn it into a meta argument, because you can't actually make a real one.

insickness 7y ago

>> He walked up to them. > That's not aggression. Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond merely saying something. > Don't be stupid. This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult. > [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be the one with critical perspective. You've just proved my point: People wanted to believe that the Covington kids were aggressive and evil and so jumped to that conclusion without seeing the totality of what actually happened.

ajross 7y ago
> Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression It's literally not. That's not what "physical" means. It's... provoking. The guy with the drum was... I dunno, he was an asshole. It's certainly possible that he knew the kids were loose cannons and was hoping that by "getting in someone's face" he could get one of them to throw a punch on camera. Could be. I mean, the guy clearly had an agenda, and it probably doesn't align with your politics. But that's still not "aggression" by any reasonable definition. Stop being a snowflake.
kadendogthing 7y ago
I noticed you still could not address the negations to your original claims, and instead decided to call other people childish because you did not like the critique being levied at you. Definitely the sign of a mature adult. >You have no tolerance of opposing opinion If all you can say about what's being discussed is that it's a simple difference of opinion, you are far better off just not saying anything at all. You are effectively trying to debase constructive conversation and turn it into a meta argument, because you can't actually make a real one.