Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

08-07-2013 , 01:22 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't see your answer? A simple question debunking your question...

Anti Japanese sentiment was high after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. I also said it was misplaced.

Interesting that you didn't answer a simple question. I'll take that as a concession.
08-07-2013 , 01:25 AM
I just answered your question....
08-07-2013 , 01:27 AM
So to recap we're at:

You: It's understandable that Americans didn't defend Japanese Americans because Japan attacked us.
Me: Next you'll defend attacking Muslims because a handful of Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
You: LOL what nation attacked us on 9/11??
Me: Not a nation, why does that make it different?
You: LOL I WIN!
08-07-2013 , 01:30 AM
There was no hand waving. Internment of Japanese Americans was wrong. You may begrudge those who lost loved ones having negative feelings against those who killed them but I think it's natural. Extending that to an entire religion is obviously wrong.

Had you lost loved ones at Pearl Harbor or 9/11 do you think you would feel ill will rjoefish?
08-07-2013 , 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
So to recap we're at:

You: It's understandable that Americans didn't defend Japanese Americans because Japan attacked us.
Me: Next you'll defend attacking Muslims because a handful of Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
You: LOL what nation attacked us on 9/11??
Me: Not a nation, why does that make it different?
You: LOL I WIN!
Quote or cite?
08-07-2013 , 01:33 AM
What does a loved one dying have to do with it? Internment was a policy of the nation and everyone went along with it. Did the entire country have a loved one die in Pearl Harbor? Did everyone who hates Muslims because of 9/11 have a loved one die in the WTC?
08-07-2013 , 01:34 AM
lol I'm not going to quote the last ~20 posts of this thread
08-07-2013 , 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
lol I'm not going to quote the last ~20 posts of this thread
Obviously because you distorted my words. Simply because you did not want to admit that an act of war by a country is different from a terrorist cell carrying out an attack.

I do not think that blaming Japanese Americans for Pearl Harbor or all Muslims for 9/11 is right no matter how hard you try to pin it on me. I do understand the grief of those that experienced loss.

Please continue to embarrass yourself with attempts at vilifying sympathy though.
08-07-2013 , 01:42 AM
How does sympathizing with the grief of those that lost loved ones translate into handwaving away policies of the nation?

I asked you what the difference was between a nation attacking us and 9/11 and you didn't answer the question. I acknowledged there was a difference between the two things but you refused to explain how that mattered.
08-07-2013 , 01:45 AM
You keep talking about handwaving. How does understanding loss imply hand waving when indicating blaming an entire nation or religion for an attack is wrong?
08-07-2013 , 01:47 AM
Because you initially said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilkain
Amazing that there was no outcry about the treatment of Japanese Americans during a world war right after Pearl Harbor.


If that's not handwaving away the treatment of Japanese Americans than what was it?

I know you've since come out and said 'oh no, of course that was wrong but think of the people that lost loved ones!' (still have no idea how this excuses them being okay with interning/hating innocent people, or the policies enacted by the nation afterwards btw) but it's still a handwave.

Last edited by rjoefish; 08-07-2013 at 01:52 AM.
08-07-2013 , 02:18 AM
A few Japanese engage in some heinous acts, but it's unacceptable to brand all Japanese as treacherous, subhuman nips and treat them as such.

A few Muslims engage in some heinous acts, but it's unacceptable to brand all Muslims as fanatical, suicide-bombing camel jockeys and treat them as such.

A few gun owners engage in some heinous acts, so let's brand all gun owners as redneck, violent, gun nuts and treat them as such.
08-08-2013 , 11:41 PM
Sounds about right. I just don't understand why wanting to preserve my rights that have existed for 230+ years, makes me some crazy gov't fearing "right-wing nut". I would be just as ticked off if people were actively trying to silence my 1st amendment rights too, which is not that far off the way things are going
08-09-2013 , 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaKtickets
You come for my guns.....you're getting my bullets!!
These are the type of posts that make you come across as a 'crazy gov't fearing "right-wing nut" fwiw.
08-09-2013 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mexibastardhawk
A few Japanese engage in some heinous acts, but it's unacceptable to brand all Japanese as treacherous, subhuman nips and treat them as such.

A few Muslims engage in some heinous acts, but it's unacceptable to brand all Muslims as fanatical, suicide-bombing camel jockeys and treat them as such.

A few gun owners engage in some heinous acts, so let's brand all gun owners as redneck, violent, gun nuts and treat them as such.
I'm pretty sure it's more than "a few gun owners", based on the number of gun homicides/injuries in this country annually.
08-09-2013 , 03:48 PM
The revolution will be caffeinated.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/articl...ts-4720320.php
08-09-2013 , 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb
I'm pretty sure it's more than "a few gun owners", based on the number of gun homicides/injuries in this country annually.
Oh okay. At what fraction of a percent does "a few" become "more than a few"?
08-09-2013 , 07:42 PM
.0350%
08-09-2013 , 07:51 PM
Any significance to that particular number? I'm assuming it has something to with the sentence, "35 in 100,000 gun owners __________________."
08-09-2013 , 07:52 PM
I think that tree fiddy from rjoe amounts to handwaving...
08-09-2013 , 07:59 PM
It's obviously a joke on 'bout tree fiddy' (which you seemed to have got) but thanks for showing how butthurt you still are.
08-09-2013 , 08:40 PM
lol was wondering why you put the extra 0 in there.
08-10-2013 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
ALIQUIPPA (KDKA) – Police say a Beaver County woman may have thwarted a robbery, by running over a suspect with her car.

It happened in the 2100 block of McMinn Street in Aliquippa.

Aliquippa police say a witness saw Cameron White walking down a street carrying what appeared to be a sawed off shotgun.

She called police, but noticed that White was heading in the direction of a group of children.

Police say she feared White was going to shoot the children, so she ran over him with her car.

White was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Police believe he was actually going to rob the Circle K mini-mart down the road and that she may have prevented the robbery.

They say White was carrying an airsoft pellet gun which had been sawed off to look like a shotgun, and the orange tip had been taken off.

The Beaver County District Attorney says they are not going to charge her with running White over
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/...-over-suspect/

Should she have been charged?
08-10-2013 , 01:21 PM
No need for a pre-crime unit when we can just let pedestrians handle that ****.
08-10-2013 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
It depends. What were their races?

      
m