It is just as much about rights as security .The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them . People who think the government is the beginning and end all tend to think that way .

The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them .Exactly right. Liberals want to deprive criminals of guns by taking guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

It is just as much about rights as security .The criminals get guns illegally . The knee jerk reactions tend to punish the innocent and deprive them of rights in the guise of protecting them . People who think the government is the beginning and end all tend to think that way .

How? Or is this your excuse to do nothing?

Exactly right. Liberals want to deprive criminals of guns by taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding.

No solution from you either?

distinction without a difference.

Not so. Look up the terms.


If they are ambiguous, the judge discerns their meaning using the meaning of the words as they were defined at the time of the authorship

"Arms" meant muskets at the time of authorship. Do you seriously contend arms has the same meaning today?


Militias were mobilized for local security and to be a check on the government military power

You left out also being a defense against foreign powers.


Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves

Yes, but you put the cart before the horse. In order to do its duty, citizens were trained and organized (regulated) by the authorities (other appointed or elected citizens).


They did not think there was a need to spell out rights granted by God (and not given by the government )

The Second Amendment is a right granted by God? I haven't heard that one before. What about authority being derived from the consent of the governed?


It was only during the ratification debates (when the Federalist Papers were written) that it became clear that to pass the Constitution ,a spelled out bill or rights would be necessary.

Otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been recognized anyway because it was granted by God? Excuse me if I'm not understanding you. Your logic is not always easy to follow.

what part of 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ' don't you understand ? Yes the 2nd amendment is endowed by God because self defense is an unalienable right .



What about authority being derived from the consent of the governed?
Madison answered that in Federalist 51 . paraphrase ... if men were angels no government would be necessary . Jefferson also answered that in the Declaration when he wrote immediately after the 'consent of governed ' quote that when government becomes the enemies of rights then the governed have the right to (dissolve) the relationship...to take up arms to remove the government . The anti-tyranny justification for the 2nd amendment is real.

Scalia called his judicial approach to the Constitution “originalism” or “textualism”. It is very similar as opposed to the concept that the constitution can be molded like putty to justify any progressive agenda as being constitutional . The classic living breathing nonsense is in the Griswald right to privacy that begat Roe v Wade . It was argued that the Bill of Rights created "emanations" of protection that created "penumbras" where rights could still be covered even if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution A penumbra is the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot–and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay–it also means “an emission.” In other words ,the words mean whatever the interpreter chooses what they mean .

,the words mean whatever the interpreter chooses what they mean .

That is certainly the case in the interpretation of the US constitution

That is certainly the case in the interpretation of the US constitution if the words have any meaning at all it is in the original textual construct. People like Tal dismiss the relevance of the thoughts behind the words of some "ancient " white guys from the 18th century . But if you don't even try to discern what the Framers meant when they wrote the constitution then why have a constitution as the basis of law to begin with ? The words to the libs are pliable . They use them if they can advance an agenda. If not they are reinterpreted or dismissed.

The words to the libs are pliable . They use them if they can advance an agenda. If not they are reinterpreted or dismissed.Exactly correct. I don't know of any approach more dangerous to truth and the rule of law than that one. It is the same approach used in interpreting the Bible. If I don't like what i'm reading, then I'll imagine it means something other than what it says.

what part of 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ' don't you understand ? Yes the 2nd amendment is endowed by God because self defense is an unalienable right .

Madison answered that in Federalist 51 . paraphrase ... if men were angels no government would be necessary . Jefferson also answered that in the Declaration when he wrote immediately after the 'consent of governed ' quote that when government becomes the enemies of rights then the governed have the right to (dissolve) the relationship...to take up arms to remove the government . The anti-tyranny justification for the 2nd amendment is real.

That's what the elections are about Tom, because who wants a shooting war in America again? Didn't we learn our lesson? So drop the government tyranny crap and rightwing shenanigans and lies and count ALL the votes. Maybe if you guys had better ideas instead of tricks and traps based on fear and hate and ego tripping we could actually govern for the good of EVERYBODY and not just the select few.

You upgrade/update your puter don't you? The same applies to ideas. At least be as smart as the homicidal loonies and criminals plaguing the land. Why be stuck in the past? The founders had their day, and now its ours!

250 years means nothing Tal, nostalgia rules

Just ignore the law. Play it by ear!

Is this now the slogan of liberal dems? If so, then don't be shocked where it takes you.

laws should change with the times, isn't this what the demonrats want?

Just ignore the law. Play it by ear!

Is this now the slogan of liberal dems? If so, then don't be shocked where it takes you.

Nobody says ignore the law, just it's a question of the intent of repubs making and changing the law, and worse LYING about it when everybody knows it goes back to the shenanigans after the south was defeated.

laws should change with the times, isn't this what the demonrats want?There is a great difference between changing the law and ignoring it.

You upgrade/update your puter don't you? The same applies to ideas. At least be as smart as the homicidal loonies and criminals plaguing the land. Why be stuck in the past? The founders had their day, and now its ours!

Based on common sense rather than originalism or textualism, this is most succinct and very to the point.

The Republicans/Conservatives/right-wing cannot even see what was most obvious to the world - that the Jan 6 mob was an insurrectionary mob dedicated to the overthrow of the government by reversing the presidential election. Some Republicans - Constitutionalists all - even supported the insurrection by not condemning it.

see what was most obvious to the world -insurrectionary mob dedicated to the overthrow of the government



https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%e2%80%9cI+GOT+MACED!%e2%80%9d+The+Mini+M usical+from+Brandon+Ethridge%2c+starrin&&view=detail&mid=9AAAD32FF977055FF5899AAAD32FF977055FF589&&FORM=VDRVRV

Yup, Dedicated Mob the World has ever seen!

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading . But I get the Dem . If they can't pass the laws they want under existing rules ;change the rules .

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading

True enough, the key word being "some".

Some morals (morality) in the past are immoral today.

Some things that were immoral are now moral.

Change is inevitable.

True moral values don't change. Our perceptions of them might, but not the values themselves. That idea of permanence was the foundation of the D of I. "Endowed by their Creator"

True moral values don't change. Our perceptions of them might, but not the values themselves.

What is that supposed to mean?


That idea of permanence was the foundation of the D of I. "Endowed by their Creator"

Do you mean the same guy who wrote "all men are created equal" while owning human beings as slaves and raping Sally Hemmings for years? That guy?

somei ideas are ageless and don't need upgrading . But I get the Dem . If they can't pass the laws they want under existing rules ;change the rules .

Like voter suppression laws after the biggest fraud free election in our history? Like SCOTUS picks? Yeah I get repubs.

You holler woke and cancel culture while you run amok for years woking and cancelling folks at will! Yeah I get repubs! It's okay when you do it, but can't stand to have it done to you.

What is that supposed to mean? Well, just use your second comment as an example. Is rape always wrong, or might that evolve over time to become merely inconvenient? In my view it is always wrong due to the view of our Creator. True moral values are timeless.

Well, just use your second comment as an example. Is rape always wrong, or might that evolve over time to become merely inconvenient?

Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?


In my view it is always wrong due to the view of our Creator.

Your creator commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods. Coveting is what drives the consumer economy. Is it immoral?


True moral values are timeless.

Can you tell us what the true timeless moral values are? I'm not denying there are some, but how many - or what are they?

Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?You missed the point. If "change is inevitable" in morality, then rape cannot be looked upon as a fixed moral standard. If it is fixed, then change is not only not inevitable, it is impossible.


Your creator commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods. Coveting is what drives the consumer economy. Is it immoral?

The Bible does not prohibit desiring to possess something (coveting). It prohibits desiring to possess what belongs to someone else. " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his , nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." So it's fine to desire a wife, but not your neighbor's wife. Commercial commerce would not fall generally under that category.


Can you tell us what the true timeless moral values are? I'm not denying there are some, but how many - or what are they?There is no point in talking about WHAT they are until it can first be established that they DO exist. Once that is accepted, then your question of "what they are" becomes a big one.

You missed the point. If "change is inevitable" in morality, then rape cannot be looked upon as a fixed moral standard. If it is fixed, then change is not only not inevitable, it is impossible.

You didn't answer the question. It was - Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient? (Even if change is inevitable? Not to obscure the question, but change being inevitable does not mean every single thing is changeable).


The Bible does not prohibit desiring to possess something (coveting). It prohibits desiring to possess what belongs to someone else. " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his , nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." So it's fine to desire a wife, but not your neighbor's wife. Commercial commerce would not fall generally under that category.

You got me on this one.


There is no point in talking about WHAT they are until it can first be established that they DO exist.

I don't agree with this one. You can talk about anything under the sun. Also, but not only, because talking about what they are would help to establish in the first place just what they are. But the more important point is the first one.


Once that is accepted, then your question of "what they are" becomes a big one.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Examining "what they are" necessarily precedes acceptance.

Since I don’t believe change in true morality is “inevitable”, then I don’t think rape should subject to change.

Absolutely not. Accepting that morality is fixed must be established before deciding what that involves. The corral must be built before buying the ponies.

the ponies just jump the fence, because they love freedom, freedom and morality can't live side by side in the same corral

Freedom cannot make it long without morality. Freedom without morality results in anarchy which leads to loss of freedom.

There is a difference between freedom and liberty

Not sure I agree with that. How do you view them as different?

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington

Since I don’t believe change in true morality is “inevitable”, then I don’t think rape should subject to change.

You offered it as a possible example that it would evolve into a minor inconvenience without a fixed morality. It's ok to say you believe morality is fixed, but you did not answer my question re your own example. If you don't want to answer your own hypothetical, then let's drop it. I don't want to go round and round with it.

Absolutely not. Accepting that morality is fixed must be established before deciding what that involves. The corral must be built before buying the ponies.

In order to establish ANYTHING, there must be a process before it's established. How do you determine what they are before discussing same? Your corral....ponies stretches the metaphor where it doesn't go.

This has a familiar ring to it, so instead of another round and round, I suggest this be dropped also.

Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of persons

Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you.Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" and "duck and dive", or keep your stupid opinions to yourself.
Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of personsTo say the founding fathers, geniuses every one, are "the most immoral of persons" is to put your ignorance on full display. Progress comes through imperfect people.

You offered it as a possible example that it would evolve into a minor inconvenience without a fixed morality.Exactly correct. I'm glad you see that.


It's ok to say you believe morality is fixed, but you did not answer my question re your own example. If you don't want to answer your own hypothetical, then let's drop it. I don't want to go round and round with it.Not sure I know what you mean. If you are speaking of this question (Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?), I thought I answered it by saying I don't believe it should since I don't believe true moral change is "inevitable" or even possible. If you mean do I think it could evolve in such a way, then good grief yes it could. History is filled with examples of large groups who viewed rape as no big deal. Read about the taking of Berlin by the Russians if you want to see an example. Practically any war that has happened was filled with incidents of rape. Raping the women of subjugated peoples remains a common practice even in recent times.

But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me. We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.

Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" or keep your stupid opinions to yourself. To say the founding fathers, geniuses every one, are "the most immoral of persons" is to put your ignorance on full display.

Geniuses, seems the colonies had a surplus of them, they tried to export Franklin many times but like the bad penny he kept coming back, no they weren't geniuses, just men caught in difficult times, rebels in fact. As an Aussie I have no reason to lie, as a Christian I have no reason to lie, they were slave owners, immoral to the core. Franklin had a change of heart and they tried to get rid of him.

They plagiarised earlier documents but then they had many decades to ferment revolt. What is remarkable is you cling to this fiction. You still live the chaos that is the result of their so called genius

I'll just repeat this. Your comment was a complete lie. "Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" and "duck and dive", or keep your stupid opinions to yourself.."

I was referring to this. "Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am."

the chaos that is the result of their so called geniusThat "chaos" has produced the most powerful economy on the planet and a largely free society. Now we are losing much of that due to, not the Constitution, but ignoring the Constitution. So your comment is wildly inaccurate. The only person clinging to fiction is you.

If you mean do I think it could evolve in such a way, then good grief yes it could. History is filled with examples of large groups who viewed rape as no big deal. Read about the taking of Berlin by the Russians if you want to see an example. Practically any war that has happened was filled with incidents of rape. Raping the women of subjugated peoples remains a common practice even in recent times.

Ridiculous. You claimed the morality of rape would become merely inconvenient. I asked for an example. You provide armies raping. Criminal actions do NOT change the morality of an action.


But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me.

You should have quit when I suggested it.


We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.

Yes, and I know why - because you go round and round repeating the same points.

BTW, paraclete is right, although hypocrite is a bit too strong.

Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of persons

Ridiculous. You claimed the morality of rape would become merely inconvenient. I asked for an example. You provide armies raping. Criminal actions do NOT change the morality of an action.The point is that they would not have considered it to be either criminal or immoral. They would view the force they had to exert as inconvenient but certainly not, to them, immoral. It's what happens when an appeal to morality is based on the opinion of the majority.

Clete lied. I called him out on it and he disappeared. Case closed.

If you want to drop it then drop it. No one is stopping you. To say that change is inevitable is true in many ways, but it is not true in genuine morality. The example of rape I used is perfect. It is always wrong even if groups of people, as in war or in the subjugation of neighboring nations, decide that it's OK. It is not subject to change. I have to think that you agree with that. I would certainly hope so. But to say it is immoral because you and I say so would be useless. We must be able to appeal to some authority above mere human opinion.

It's what happens when an appeal to morality is based on the opinion of the majority.

Here's where you go wrong. You are assuming morality that is based on the "opinion of the majority" makes it immoral. Only you have made that assumption. Facts are not based on the opinion of the majority. Science is not based on the opinion of the majority. Reality itself is not based on opinion. They all exist independently of opinion.


The example of rape I used is perfect. It is always wrong even if groups of people, as in war or in the subjugation of neighboring nations, decide that it's OK.

It is not even close to perfect. Who says rape has been decided to be ok? What groups of people have decided that? Don't tell me rapists have decided that it's ok (that's essentially what you've been saying).


It is not subject to change. I have to think that you agree with that.

Not at all. Morality is subject to change. Depends on what is accepted as morality. Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases.


We must be able to appeal to some authority above mere human opinion.

Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion. (See my reply above).

Here's where you go wrong. You are assuming morality that is based on the "opinion of the majority" makes it immoral.I have never made that assumption.


It is not even close to perfect. Who says rape has been decided to be ok? What groups of people have decided that? Don't tell me rapists have decided that it's ok (that's essentially what you've been saying).The groups of people who do it plainly think it is OK, just like murderers often decide murder is OK, and thieves decide theft is OK, or the rioters in Minneapolis decide that the destruction of someone else's property is OK. It is widespread.


Not at all. Morality is subject to change.So you are back to adopting a philosophy that allows for moral standards about rape to someday, being subject to change as you have just said they are, be changed and rape become morally acceptable. Sorry, but I don't accept that.


Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion.You just did. "Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases." That is strictly an appeal to an acceptance by the majority, which is to say human opinion.

The groups of people who do it plainly think it is OK, just like murderers often decide murder is OK, and thieves decide theft is OK, or the rioters in Minneapolis decide that the destruction of someone else's property is OK. It is widespread.

You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!


So you are back to adopting a philosophy that allows for moral standards about rape to someday, being subject to change as you have just said they are, be changed and rape become morally acceptable.

I'm not back to any philosophy. Dear Lord! Why can't you read and understand what I write? It's really not that difficult.


"Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases." That is strictly an appeal to an acceptance by the majority, which is to say human opinion.

The human majority once believed the earth was flat. Now it believes the earth is a sphere. Is the earth a sphere because of a human majority having an opinion that it is?

You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!Why do you say they are criminals? You say they are wrong, and they say they are right. Who casts the deciding vote?


I'm not back to any philosophy. Dear Lord! Why can't you read and understand what I write? It's really not that difficult.You're the one who says morals change. If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change? Are you now saying that only SOME morals change, but not all?


The human majority once believed the earth was flat. Now it believes the earth is a sphere. Is the earth a sphere because of a human majority having an opinion that it is?Ask yourself that since it is YOU who is making an appeal to opinion. I have no regard at all for morals being established by the majority.

Why do you say they are criminals? You say they are wrong, and they say they are right.

I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.


You're the one who says morals change.

Yes.


If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?

Because rape is bad.


Are you now saying that only SOME morals change, but not all?

I thought it was obvious I was ALWAYS saying that.


Ask yourself that since it is YOU who is making an appeal to opinion.

No, I'm asking you because you clearly have a mistaken idea of what a majority of humanity can or cannot do. I hoped my example would open your eyes a bit. I have NEVER made an appeal to opinion here. You have put opinion opposing God, not I.

I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.Not all laws and not all people. Who wins?




If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?


Because rape is bad.So morals about rape can't change? Why?


No, I'm asking you because you clearly have a mistaken idea of what a majority of humanity can or cannot do. I hoped my example would open your eyes a bit. I have NEVER made an appeal to opinion here. You have put opinion opposing God, not I.Yes you did. Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.

Not all laws and not all people. Who wins?

The laws I follow win. As far as I know, all laws say rape is bad.


So morals about rape can't change? Why?

Because rape is bad.


Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.

Only in your fevered imagination was it plainly an appeal to public opinion.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness didn't apply to slaves, Indians, and women. Not sure inalienable right from the Creator did either. Yeah the founders were great moral leaders.

The laws I follow win. As far as I know, all laws say rape is bad.So if laws change to allow for rape, then rape becomes moral? When slavery was legal, was slavery moral? I'm just trying to determine what standard you use to determine what is or isn't moral. You say it's not public opinion, so is it law?


Because rape is bad.You are appealing only to your opinion. I certainly agree with you, but many people do not. So for them, is rape NOT bad?


Only in your fevered imagination was it plainly an appeal to public opinion.Then what was your divorce example an appeal to?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness didn't apply to slaves, Indians, and women. Not sure inalienable right from the Creator did either. Yeah the founders were great moral leaders.

No they weren't included in "all men" were they? they certainly weren't equal in those days which brings into question every thing they said

What the founding fathers accomplished was an enormous step forward as opposed to being dominated by a king. And they established a Constitutional framework that enabled the rights they advocated for to be extended to all people. I would just say to all of you moralizers that when you have exhibited 1% of the courage and wisdom they did, or when you have accomplished 1% of what they did, then you will be more believable. They must be seen within the times they lived in.

So if laws change to allow for rape, then rape becomes moral?

Where in the world are you getting this from? Not from anything I said.


When slavery was legal, was slavery moral?

I do not think it was, but others did think it was moral. They base this on the law at the time (and the Bible!). That shoots down your opinion that morality reverts to public opinion when not from God.


I'm just trying to determine what standard you use to determine what is or isn't moral. You say it's not public opinion, so is it law?

It can be law and usually is. But as we have just seen re slavery, not always. And law itself has a source. Regardless of the source, morality (or law) does not spring full-blown from the mind of man. It takes time for something to be deemed moral or immoral.

The simplest way to express the source is a code of conduct that works and that originates in a shared culture. Is it the same for everybody? On the whole, yes. (There are always exceptions to everything.) It takes time to develop, like any other organizing principle of humanity.


You are appealing only to your opinion.

You say this frequently, but what else can anyone appeal to if not his own mind and how he understands things?


I certainly agree with you, but many people do not.

Who does NOT believe rape is bad? Please don't say a rapist.


So for them, is rape NOT bad?

The only ones who fall into this category are those of unsound mind - mentally unbalanced people.


Then what was your divorce example an appeal to?

It was not an appeal to anything. It was an example of how morality changes.

The simplest way to express the source is a code of conduct that works and that originates in a shared culture. Is it the same for everybody? On the whole, yes. (There are always exceptions to everything.) It takes time to develop, like any other organizing principle of humanity.So morality is not universal. It only applies to the "shared culture" in which it originates?


Who does NOT believe rape is bad? Please don't say a rapist.

The only ones who fall into this category are those of unsound mind - mentally unbalanced people.There have been entire cultures who accepted that raping the women of conquered peoples was acceptable. Rome comes to mind. Rome would unhesitatingly kill, rape, and sell into slavery a conquered nation. They would have said YOU are the mentally unbalanced one for not agreeing with them. So I don't think your view of how moral values are established is particularly compelling.


It was not an appeal to anything. It was an example of how morality changes.Based on changes in public opinions.

When you learn better and do better that's called evolutionary progress. It's okay if you're still stuck in the past just please get the freak out of the way.

PS

Keep your crap in your own yard unless INVITED!

There's a rather large crowd of people in Minneapolis (peaceful protestors according to some on this site) who have a shared cultural belief that breaking into stores and stealing the contents is a perfectly moral thing to do. Does that make them right?

That large crowd (I heard it's around 1,000 people -- thinning out now) are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values.

That large crowd (I heard it's around 1,000 people -- thinning out now) are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values.How do you know that?

Protests and rioting seems to go hand in hand with cop killings. Wonder why?

How do you know that?
Because the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile.

Because the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile.OK. First of all, that doesn't tell me how you know "That large crowd...are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values."

But even at that, how do you know that, " the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile." I think we are back to broken chromosomes, which is to say simple speculation in an effort to support your narrative.

OK. First of all, that doesn't tell me how you know "
Since 1963, I've lived in a large metropolitan area that's very multicultural and multiracial. My Black (and white) friends are well educated, well spoken, and very familiar with what's going on in the world. That's how I know.

Since 1963, I've lived in a large metropolitan area that's very multicultural and multiracial. My Black (and white) friends are well educated, well spoken, and very familiar with what's going on in the world. That's how I know.You don't "know" any such thing. You are just making assumptions. But the ones (hundreds of them) looting and destroying certainly have a shared cultural belief, so I guess that, for them, it is a moral undertaking???

have a shared cultural belief
Looting, smashing, raising havoc, destroying property, injuring people...those are cultural (Black?) values?

Since 1963, I've lived in a large metropolitan area that's very multicultural and multiracial. My Black (and white) friends are well educated, well spoken, and very familiar with what's going on in the world. That's how I know.

That's is a very reasonable assumption based on experience and interactions and no doubt the willingness to listen closely WG with no bias(?), or judgement.

Unlike others! That's always been the problem in America, judgement without listening and NO empathy whatsoever, so it's no wonder the protests and complaints getter louder and more dramatic.

That's is a very reasonable assumption based on experience and interactions and no doubt the willingness to listen closely WG with no bias(?), or judgement.

That's the biggest, most loving gift my wonderful dad blessed me with. From early childhood on, I was taught, mostly by his example, to be kind, caring, a good listener, both sympathetic AND empathetic. The libraries I worked at for 30 years had patrons of every culture, race, ethnic group, and they each added wonderful dimensions to my life.

That's the biggest, most loving gift my wonderful dad blessed me with. From early childhood on, I was taught, mostly by his example, to be kind, caring, a good listener, both sympathetic AND empathetic. The libraries I worked at for 30 years had patrons of every culture, race, ethnic group, and they each added wonderful dimensions to my life.All of which is wonderful, but none of which gives you even a clue as to the crowd tearing up the town in Minneapolis. Pretty sure you'd have to actually go up there and observe/interact to know what you claimed to know.

All of which is wonderful, but none of which gives you even a clue as to the crowd tearing up the town in Minneapolis. Pretty sure you'd have to actually go up there and observe/interact to know what you claimed to know.

The same could be said of you and maybe you could separate the peaceful message from the more volatile ones and the troublemakers from down right criminals. Maybe then you could listen to reason and understand the cause and effects circumstances of events better. Just saying!

...And that's how you handle a troll! They can block and ignore all they want. That's all they can really do when you think about it.