Meanwhile The Left changes definitions to suit their needs quite a bit.

BP <<Doesn't follow logically.

One may be weak but unafraid. If you can prove that to be incorrect, then I will concede the point.>>

<Everett: <Actually, this is implied by one or two logical steps.>

Logical steps? That's why I wrote it doesn't <necessarily follow>, because you were speaking about <logical> steps.

Your first point (step 1): <The weak are naturally more vulnerable than the strong. To be considered weak will likely mean that you and others will view you as more vulnerable, and easier target for some sort of malevolence.>

Weak means vulnerable. Okay.

Now here's your second point (step 2).

<Thus fearing vulnerability and weakness itself seems quite natural. >>

<Thus> he says, which implies that something necessarily follows.

You think you've proved that if you are weak, it's natural to be fearful.

There is no justified use of the word <thus> there, because this does not necessarily follow, which means it doesn't flow logically.

That's why I said, <Doesn't follow logically.

One may be weak but unafraid. If you can prove that to be incorrect, then I will concede the point.>

<seems> does not equal <must>. <Natural> does not equal <true> nor <always>

And what was it that <Troller> was suggesting? If the “perception“ of <fill in the condition> is a negative <associated with weakness> in the eyes of the greater culture, fear may result. He said afraid, but same diff. Are you saying this doesn’t follow along logical lines? Is the use of the word “logic” tripping us up here?

What I didn’t say implicitly or explicitly was when one is weak they <must> be afraid. So, thus, therefore, I am not bound in any way to your reformulation, and have nothing to refute. It also means it obviates any concern for concession(s) on your end. The issue is moot.

That said, can we please lighten up and be a bit less pedantic? I understand logic is your bailey-wick (uh oh, here comes a diatribe on how it’s precisely NOT your bailey-wick because of points 1-10, with the following subsections) but I’d rather discuss some of the other issues within which we agree than continue scorching the earth around such small sentences and turns of phrase.

That's because you were laying out a <logical> case with two points, from which, logically, you come to some conclusion.

That's not what happened.

<Bring on the <central points>.>

I did that and you don't like it.

I said to <Troller> that he has not justified the use of the word <afraid> as it pertains to disgust toward homosexuality. That is, the libs refuse to admit that homosexuality is disgusting and claim that anyone who doesn't like homosexuality <must> be <fearful> or <afraid> of it.

You supported the lib's claim and said it was a matter of two logical steps.

I contested the <central point> of your claim, which is the logical inference involved in those two <logical steps>.

You were unable to bolster that argument and so we have concluded this on the refutation of the <central points>.

Hmmmmm. He had THAT much drugs in his system? >

Well, he's been drug free for nearly 4 months now.

All we really know about the matter of George Floyd is that he'll never be able to harm anyone ever again.

We also know that the cops who removed this scum from the street, where he led a criminal career and terrorized people, should be regarded as heroes and not villains.

The country as a whole has learned a valuable lesson: Let's not pretend that alleged police brutality against black criminals is a bigger problem than black criminality.

You’re wrong. Part of his argument linked <homosexuality> to a cultural perception of individual weakness. That’s the part I piggy-backed. So <troller> said more than what you’re saying he did.

I didn’t <support> any libs claim. That, in fact, is a lie.

You claimed my <central points> were ill-conceived and flawed. Then you claim to know what I meant to say, and reframed the debate around your incorrect conception of my <central point> And if you claim that is not my <central point>, why go on and on about it?

If this is a habit of yours (reframing debates to fit your circumscribed parameters) it would make sense why people stop debating your <central points.>

Thing is your central point <- the Incorrect use of afraid instead of disgust in response to a behavior -> is not my central point <- perception of weakness, regardless of how it comes about, may result in fear >-

No I didn't.

<You’re wrong.>

That is not convincing.

<Part of his argument linked <homosexuality> to a cultural perception of individual weakness. That’s the part I piggy-backed.>

Show me.

<If this is a habit of yours (reframing debates to fit your circumscribed parameters) >

Didn't happen.

Unless he lives really close by, he drove there like that

And then he would be getting into his car again, completely intoxicated with a cocktail of drugs in his system

<that is not convincing> THAT is not convincing!

<show me> I did, couple times now

Unless he lives really close by, he drove there like that>

He'll never be able to hurt anyone or put anyone in danger ever again.

<that is not convincing> THAT is not convincing!>

You've had your chance to bolster your argument and make it more clear, but instead this is the response you give.

Since September 10, 2020... ;0]

<Everett: <Jambow> Disgust and fear are not synonymous. Yet they seem quite related, as they both are strongly negative, and usually make us move away from, push away from, or flee from whatever is causing it.>

They are often but not always related. Murder and theft are often related and yet they have two very different meanings.

The term homophobic was nonsense, is nonsense and will always be nonsense. Why not just admit it is the wrong term instead of ardently defending it or rationalizing it?

True

<All we really know about the matter of George Floyd is that he'll never be able to harm anyone ever again.>

True

<We also know that the cops who removed this scum from the street, where he led a criminal career and terrorized people, should be regarded as heroes and not villains.>

False

<The country as a whole has learned a valuable lesson: Let's not pretend that alleged police brutality against black criminals is a bigger problem than black criminality.>

True

<If I had my way, America wouldn't have these problems.>

False>

Why is that false? It seems so obviously true, how could it possibly be false?

This violent, drugged up, career criminal was loose on the streets, resisting arrest and rebelling against society both directly and indirectly by rebelling against the police.

I think we agree so far, correct?

After he unwisely escalated the situation by resisting arrest, he died from a drug overdose while being restrained by police.

Do we still agree so far?

The cops should have beat him over the head with a billy club and threw him in the back of the cruiser like the violent criminal he was, but they went soft on him. That's PC and that is my only criticism of the police in this incident, but, I do not know <all> of the facts so I will not rush to judgment on that one.

Someone has to stand up to these intimidating, unpredictable, drugged up, violent, career criminals and in this case, it was the good guys in blue. This is why I say they should be regarded as heroes, rather than as villains as the libs insist.

1. If George Floyd had not been breaking the law and taking illegal drugs, he wouldn't have OD'd on them.

2. If George Floyd did not resist arrest, he might still be alive today.

Unfortunately, George Floyd didn't have the privilege of white man's wisdom, like white people do. I think they call it White Privilege for short.

Instead of having the privilege of white man's wisdom, the colored people have something else entirely different. They have this thing they created for themselves. It's called Ghetto Wisdom or, if you like, Hood Wisdom, and it comes from the F**K THE POLICE culture that they created for themselves.

It's kind of a Darwin Award, isn't it? Why yes, I think it is!

Trump earned this nomination, unlike Hussein Obama. Trump helped broker a historic peace agreement between Jews and Arabs. That pretty much says it all right there.

Obama? What did he do, being president for two whole days before he was nominated and given the NPP? He was black. That's what he did.

An affirmative action president given an affirmative action Nobel Peace Prize.

The libs figure black people can't rightly earn something like a NPP, so they have to "let them win one" once in a while - aka the so-called soft bigotry of low expectations.

While Trump as ushered in an era of peace, Hussein Obama ushered in an era of war and division. He lit the Middle East aflame and stoked the flames of division here at home in America, calling cops stupid and siding with black thugs against the police and those standing for law and order.

Barack Obama ginned up the racial animosity in this country to levels not seen since 1968 and then split the scene, leaving this giant, disgusting mess of a country in Trump's hands, yet he was given the NPP.

What a wicked man.

When you look out on the streets of Portland, Minneapolis, Kenosha, NYC, and all the other parts of America that are in flames, widespread destruction, murder, mob violence, intimidation, and looting, you see Barack Hussein Obama. That's his face in the flames.

Obama, the affirmative action president. The affirmative action NPP winner.

Thank God we have a real president again, a man of law and order. Obama left his evil flying monkeys with one command: Don't let there be peace in America!

It's a good thing we have a man of peace in the White House, but he can't just sit back and let these terrorists and their conspirators in high places destroy this country, burn it down and kill its people. Just as we wouldn't tolerate a foreign enemy in our midst, so we mustn't tolerate a domestic enemy. Trump needs to put these people to the sword, starting at the top.

I’m sure many people have died before realizing they were about to, and after they failed to protect themselves because they felt no, or not enough, fear to act proactively.>

Yes, I get this part. I think the gun discussion maybe gets beside the point, as we are located in different parts of the world. Where I live, people do not have guns for protection, only for hunting. Basically there is no need for it, so it would seem an excessive display of fear to have guns for protection. Things might be different elsewhere though.

<<Have you ever studied the subject at all?>

No, of course not.> And yet you make sweeping statements on the subject. I know you can do better than that (and you also do in the later posts I admit).

Why do you think the police are told to stand down and let communist thugs terrorize our cities? It's because the commies are at the top, not just at the bottom. Just imagine if they had successfully execute a "common sense gun grab." Right now the revolutionaries would be raping your women and children and killing the men who have commie-phobia, trans-phobia, homo-phobia and, especially, those evil Christians who preach hate from their hateful bibles that they cling to (as Obama said).

Just remember, the police are not there to protect you. They are there to protect the commie marxist terrorist scum in the streets. They attack you, nothing happens. You attack them, you are arrested and jailed.

A few years ago, I wondered aloud on this website why these terrorists, why the enemy within, wasn't being shot dead in the streets by the police or the military. The libs said I was crazy, insane, evil, because I wanted to kill "protesters", because that's all they are, after all, just innocent, harmless, good-natured protesters, exercising their rights as Americans, and I just want them dead simply because - you guessed it - they <disagreed> with me.

Well now the chickens have come home to roost! They aren't even trying to hide their true colors anymore. They are out in the streets killing people, saying Death To America, tearing down our monuments like an invading army.

You should have listened to <Big Pawn>. If I were in charge, I would have put this group down a few years ago and the country wouldn't be on the verge of a civil war right now.

This ends when they are all killed. This ends with violence, not with reason. Not with talking. This ends with bloodshed.

The thugs on the street need to be put down like the rabid dogs they are, but they aren't the most dangerous ones. The ones that really need to be put down are in the universities, the media and in high offices. These are the people leading the lawlessness, the arson, the murder, the destruction of America!

The revolutionaries in the media behind the big microphones who incite all of this violence, chaos and lawlessness are largely responsible for all of the division in the country. Their heads belong on spikes in front of the White House.

The anti-American, enemy of the state professors who indoctrinate the youth need to be put to the sword. They are the ones radicalizing a generation of Americans to hate their forefathers, their parents, grand parents and great grand parents who fought and died for this country!

The corrupt politicians, mayors, governors, senators, congressmen and judges need to be purged. Stripped naked, whipped and killed in public.

Friends, this is the easy way out of this mess, not the hard way, but will it happen? Let us pray that it does, because if it doesn't, the alternative may well be much worse. These radicalized terrorist commies aren't going away. The professors will churn out more radicals. The media will inflame the rabble. The corrupt politicians will continue to encourage lawlessness and we will find ourselves in a civil war that kills not only the guilty that I mentioned above, but millions of innocent people as well.