I will take your response as you're not open-minded enough to hear opposing views, and further any attempt at forcing a discussion from you is perceived by you as an "attack" against your ideology, and you respond with fanatical assertions accusing everyone else of being intellectually boring.

Thank you.

I concur with the diagnosis.

Getting a proper intelligent discussion out of Clyde would be like trying to get milk from a bull. :-(

Cheers.

Unfortunately, there is milking the bull.

---

I will take your response as you're not open-minded enough to hear opposing views, and further any attempt at forcing a discussion from you is perceived by you as an "attack" against your ideology, and you respond with fanatical assertions accusing everyone else of being intellectually boring.

Thank you.

I concur with the diagnosis.

Getting a proper intelligent discussion out of Clyde would be like trying to get milk from a bull. :-(

Cheers.

I will take your response as you're not open-minded enough to hear opposing views, and further any attempt at forcing a discussion from you is perceived by you as an "attack" against your ideology, and you respond with fanatical assertions accusing everyone else of being intellectually boring.

Thank you.

I concur with the diagnosis.

---

'Parroting' another is an Intelligent reply?

Smells like a childish Nah, nah, nah, nah. So are you!

After failing to engage you in other methods of discussion, I've resorted to showing you how you sound to see if I can at least get through to you using your own methods.

If it is considered an unintelligent reply, then what does that say about you when you do it to everyone else?

Believer's in a Secular Religion (Ideology). Are the same as God Believers.

In my opinion.

You disagree.

No, I don't disagree that some people believe in their opinions so much that any disagreement with them is met with the same fanaticism that religious believers respond with.

What I disagree with is your assertion that everyone here are those fanatical believers. Again, anyone that you seem to disagree with gets put into a box that you won't let them out of, and you immediately start disregarding all their opinions and responses while assuming you know what their positions are.

Again, you have your own ideology that others will disagree with from time to time. Would it be right of them to simply dismiss your opinions in the same way you dismiss theirs? Or would it be better to actually discuss the topic, give the person a chance to explain their position, and if you disagree, state why you disagree and provide your reasoning, and if applicable, your sources for your reasoning until the two sides either understand each other or agree to disagree.

Wait? That almost sounds like civil discussion!

We disagree regarding 'Believers'.

OK.

Great. So we have a starting point. Now how do we reconcile our differences without resorting to "you don't understand and your type never will"? I am willing to hear you out on why you label everyone here as 'believers', and I'm willing to consider your position and take it on as my own if you can provide a compelling enough argument.

But, are you willing to do the same? Are you open-minded enough to listen to counterpoints and consider taking them on as your own if a compelling enough argument is made?

You don't agree. Dismiss. Easy.

Your, and others obsession, is both Intellectually 'Telling' and Boring, at the same time.

If you are an Atheist, or Agnostic: What are your thoughts regarding attacks from God Believers.

Same here.

I will take your response as you're not open-minded enough to hear opposing views, and further any attempt at forcing a discussion from you is perceived by you as an "attack" against your ideology, and you respond with fanatical assertions accusing everyone else of being intellectually boring.

Thank you.

'Parroting' another is an Intelligent reply?

Smells like a childish Nah, nah, nah, nah. So are you!

After failing to engage you in other methods of discussion, I've resorted to showing you how you sound to see if I can at least get through to you using your own methods.

If it is considered an unintelligent reply, then what does that say about you when you do it to everyone else?

Believer's in a Secular Religion (Ideology). Are the same as God Believers.

In my opinion.

You disagree.

No, I don't disagree that some people believe in their opinions so much that any disagreement with them is met with the same fanaticism that religious believers respond with.

What I disagree with is your assertion that everyone here are those fanatical believers. Again, anyone that you seem to disagree with gets put into a box that you won't let them out of, and you immediately start disregarding all their opinions and responses while assuming you know what their positions are.

Again, you have your own ideology that others will disagree with from time to time. Would it be right of them to simply dismiss your opinions in the same way you dismiss theirs? Or would it be better to actually discuss the topic, give the person a chance to explain their position, and if you disagree, state why you disagree and provide your reasoning, and if applicable, your sources for your reasoning until the two sides either understand each other or agree to disagree.

Wait? That almost sounds like civil discussion!

We disagree regarding 'Believers'.

OK.

Great. So we have a starting point. Now how do we reconcile our differences without resorting to "you don't understand and your type never will"? I am willing to hear you out on why you label everyone here as 'believers', and I'm willing to consider your position and take it on as my own if you can provide a compelling enough argument.

But, are you willing to do the same? Are you open-minded enough to listen to counterpoints and consider taking them on as your own if a compelling enough argument is made?

Wait? That almost sounds like civil discussion!

That position isn't inside his hermetically sealed box, so there will be no understanding, only dismissal!

---

'Parroting' another is an Intelligent reply?

Smells like a childish Nah, nah, nah, nah. So are you!

After failing to engage you in other methods of discussion, I've resorted to showing you how you sound to see if I can at least get through to you using your own methods.

If it is considered an unintelligent reply, then what does that say about you when you do it to everyone else?

Believer's in a Secular Religion (Ideology). Are the same as God Believers.

In my opinion.

You disagree.

No, I don't disagree that some people believe in their opinions so much that any disagreement with them is met with the same fanaticism that religious believers respond with.

What I disagree with is your assertion that everyone here are those fanatical believers. Again, anyone that you seem to disagree with gets put into a box that you won't let them out of, and you immediately start disregarding all their opinions and responses while assuming you know what their positions are.

Again, you have your own ideology that others will disagree with from time to time. Would it be right of them to simply dismiss your opinions in the same way you dismiss theirs? Or would it be better to actually discuss the topic, give the person a chance to explain their position, and if you disagree, state why you disagree and provide your reasoning, and if applicable, your sources for your reasoning until the two sides either understand each other or agree to disagree.

Wait? That almost sounds like civil discussion!

Again, another false assertion, from a Believer. Typical of that type.

Do these types really believe those who do not share their 'Beliefs' are stupid, and believe their assertions?

Do you not see how this is exactly what you do to everyone else? At the end of your post you say this:

Edit: Why do I continue to Post the Truth about Ideologues?

Good question.

It is as Mind Numbing, as attempting to have an Intelligent Discussion with a God Believer.

The irony here is that you constantly and consistently tell everyone else on these fora that you are exposing the "truth" of their ideology, and how you are Atheistic toward "fanatical" belief systems, then you routinely do to everyone here that which you do yourself.

You've put everyone here in a metaphorical box and claim they can't think their way outside of the box you've put them in, damned if your box or label is correct of anyone here; that fact doesn't seem to matter to you. Anyone you disagree with on principal alone gets labeled a religious fanatic of ideology.

Will you, and others, of you type understand this?

*sniff* *sniff* We really are getting so deep into irony that we're almost to hypocrisy.

Will you, and others, of your type understand this?

Answer: No.

Unarmed and innocent, but dead.
http://ktla.com/2015/07/14/federal-judge-orders-gardena-to-release-videos-of-fatal-2013-police-shooting/

Oh dear, more trigger happy cops. :-(

Something drastic will have to be done with the way police behave and are trained over there or the general public just won't have any confidence at all with them.

In fact they'll wind up being looked at as just another bunch of hoods.

Some one in this thread brought up the possibilty that its the hiring of combat veterans that is the reason they shoot first ask questions later.
Send a young soldier or Marine to a city where they face upclose combat. Yes its shoot first or die.
Then they come and and some become cops. I cant buy that either. Many WW2 vets became cops. So did Korean and VietyNam vets. And we didnt see all these shootings. Or was it not reported?
I dont have any answeres for whats going on.

Well, the reason might be that today they were cops and with rank when we sent them off to war as reserves, so when they came back they changed the training for rookie cops to shoot first, ask questions later.

---

Unarmed and innocent, but dead.
http://ktla.com/2015/07/14/federal-judge-orders-gardena-to-release-videos-of-fatal-2013-police-shooting/

Oh dear, more trigger happy cops. :-(

Something drastic will have to be done with the way police behave and are trained over there or the general public just won't have any confidence at all with them.

In fact they'll wind up being looked at as just another bunch of hoods.

Some one in this thread brought up the possibilty that its the hiring of combat veterans that is the reason they shoot first ask questions later.
Send a young soldier or Marine to a city where they face upclose combat. Yes its shoot first or die.
Then they come and and some become cops. I cant buy that either. Many WW2 vets became cops. So did Korean and VietyNam vets. And we didnt see all these shootings. Or was it not reported?
I dont have any answeres for whats going on.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Now Clyde you really are showing us all your true colours (and still with the same basic language skills), you really should stop blowing that hot air around (remember global warming?).

Some of still have hopes that you may grow up 1 day and be a respectable and responsible person, but then some of us are optimists.

Cheers.

Unarmed and innocent, but dead.
http://ktla.com/2015/07/14/federal-judge-orders-gardena-to-release-videos-of-fatal-2013-police-shooting/

Oh dear, more trigger happy cops. :-(

Something drastic will have to be done with the way police behave and are trained over there or the general public just won't have any confidence at all with them.

In fact they'll wind up being looked at as just another bunch of hoods.

Unarmed and innocent, but dead.
http://ktla.com/2015/07/14/federal-judge-orders-gardena-to-release-videos-of-fatal-2013-police-shooting/

---

Just the same hollows words and posts without any substance

+1

---

Yes, I am probably more experienced, and possibly use my intelligence to a greater degree, than those I 'Out'.

Now that's highly debatable Clyde (maybe not in your mind), but I think that you missed out on a classic job with the circus (you would've done well there). ;-)

Have you ever thought about expanding vocabulary to save us from all these lefts, rights, hatefulls, nazis, etc, etc,.......

As for an "Intelligent Discussion", you've already proved to the rest of us that it's impossible for you to have 1.

Just the same hollows words and posts without any substance. :-(

Cheers.

1 of the only people I see 'Outing' themselves around here is you Clyde, and you do it so well (you must be a professional). ;-)

Cheers.

Gary,

How is this unjustified use of force by a police officer? Did you read the article you linked?

Did I say it was unjustified? AFIK I just posted a link without saying another word. I did not express an opinion.

The Link was your opinion. Of course.

MajorKong...

Just Gary being, well... Gary.

Clyde, that's your opinion, you have no data to support your assertion.
Clyde I'm sorry that you are so negative. Critical thinking does not apply.

---

http://nypost.com/2015/07/13/city-reaches-5-9m-settlement-in-garner-chokehold-case/
City reaches $5.9M settlement in Garner chokehold case

Gary,

How is this unjustified use of force by a police officer? Did you read the article you linked?

Did I say it was unjustified? AFIK I just posted a link without saying another word. I did not express an opinion.

---

http://ktla.com/2015/06/09/video-shows-salinas-police-beating-assault-suspect-with-batons-investigation-underway/

Gary,

How is this unjustified use of force by a police officer? Did you read the article you linked?

Police are called. Police arrive to find suspect bashing a woman's head into the ground. Police pull suspect off of woman. Suspect attacks police and grabs a taser from one of them. Police use taser twice on suspect, to no effect. Suspect continues to attack police.

At this point, police have a choice. Batons or bullets. They chose batons. It took 5 officers with batons to subdue the suspect enough to get him into cuffs, and he still continued to fight and struggle. Suspect attacks paramedic and police officer as he is being loaded into a vehicle for transport to the hospital.

Again, what is wrong here?

Sure, I will grant that just seeing the video only, without any knowledge of what lead up to that point, might appear to be somewhat over the top...

But, in my opinion, these officers deserve a medal. They arrived at a bad situation, used restraint in handling it, saved the life of the woman being assaulted (who was the suspect's own mother, by the way), managed to subdue the suspect without shooting him with their firearms, and took him to the hospital for prompt attention to his possible wounds.

What did these 5 police officers do wrong?