Please critique behavior of open carrier stop by police VIDEO

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:
I must be getting old.  I didn't even see that as a homosexual reference but rather took it as a bowing/scraping Wayne's World type "we're not worthy" sort of reference.:?
[/quote]
Same here. :uhoh:

 

[CarryOpen]

imported post

I also find it intriguing that both of these new users only post around the same time. Stop feeding the trolls guys.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

When your argument sucks, refer to people as possibly gay. Gotcha....

Iron clad argument is iron-clad.

I must be getting old. I didn't even see that as a homosexual reference but rather took it as a bowing/scraping Wayne's World type "we're not worthy" sort of reference.:?

Critical analysis has nothing to do with age. His statement "come up for air" in the context of being on ones knees obviously precludes your example of Wayne's World-esque fanatacism.

Must be getting old, is too sheltered, is becoming more liberal in my old age ... whatever you want to attribute it to the point wasn't critical analysis, the point was that I was like "DOH!" at myself because I didn't even notice that interpretation.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

Yea, anyone that doesn't agree with YOU is a troll. :quirky

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Must be getting old, is too sheltered, is becoming more liberal in my old age ... whatever you want to attribute it to the point wasn't critical analysis, the point was that I was like "DOH!" at myself because I didn't even notice that interpretation.

Understood. Just wanted to make sure you read the whole post.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

Festus_Hagen wrote:

Yea, anyone that doesn't agree with YOU is a troll. :quirky

Festus_Hagen wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

I am not homosexual.

Dude, it's OK. I'm not judging you. :arrow:

Instead of accepting slowfiveoh's statement that he is not homosexual you follow the lead of your counterpart, and again infer that he is in fact homosexual.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, however when you contradict someones statement to the contrary you enter the realm of Ad hominem arguments. Which are generally not well received around here, for obvious reasons.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

 

[Pace]

imported post

Getting a little defensive yah? :celebrate

slowfiveoh wrote:

am not homosexual. I simply acknowledge that all people, are simply that. People.

Using homosexuality to negatively emphasize another persons actions you do not agree with, could possibly be damaging to the cause, that's all.

Also, I never said you did guy. I was referring to your counterpart.

Here is the statement, since memory fails you:

 

[Pace]

imported post

That makes no sense, since he wasn't attacking his homesexuality, in fact he said he has no issue with it.

Either way, they didn't include sexual preference in there, so it's a moot point Unless being gay is an occupation

This conversation is getting SILLY WILLY.

diesel556 wrote:

Instead of accepting slowfiveoh's statement that he is not homosexual you follow the lead of your counterpart, and again infer that he is in fact homosexual.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, however when you contradict someones statement to the contrary you enter the realm of Ad hominem arguments. Which are generally not well received around here, for obvious reasons.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

Pace wrote:

That makes no sense, since he wasn't attacking his homesexuality, in fact he said he has no issue with it.

Either way, they didn't include sexual preference in there, so it's a moot point Unless being gay is an occupation

This conversation is getting SILLY WILLY.

diesel556 wrote: 

Instead of accepting slowfiveoh's statement that he is not homosexual you follow the lead of your counterpart, and again infer that he is in fact homosexual.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, however when you contradict someones statement to the contrary you enter the realm of Ad hominem arguments. Which are generally not well received around here, for obvious reasons.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

Yes, I have nothing against them.

slowfiveoh somehow made this thread into something about homosexuals, even though nobody else said anything about them. This IS silly....lol.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

Pace wrote:

That makes no sense, since he wasn't attacking his homesexuality, in fact he said he has no issue with it.

Either way, they didn't include sexual preference in there, so it's a moot point Unless being gay is an occupation

This conversation is getting SILLY WILLY.

Please read my post again for comprehension.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Must be getting old, is too sheltered, is becoming more liberal in my old age ... whatever you want to attribute it to the point wasn't critical analysis, the point was that I was like "DOH!" at myself because I didn't even notice that interpretation.

Understood. Just wanted to make sure you read the whole post.

I know I haven't been here much lately but I still r > c >p

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

This thread took a turn for the worse.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I know I haven't been here much lately but I still r > c >p