Bart, this is the third time you et al resort to moral shaming when presented with arguments.
Slobodan, not all are arguments, but misplaced (as you call it) 'Sarcasm'.
When you do not like points presented, you labeled them "cheap" and "disrespectful." Let alone labeling me "immature" or worse. I am starting to resent that.
Then maybe consider to stop provoking such qualifications, and engage in an honest discussion, or not.
I presented so far plenty of reasoned arguments, supported by sources, that go beyond the knee-jerk reaction and superficial reading of headlines or stats, so typical for your side of the argument, from people who never set foot to the States, let alone lived here.
There we go again. So people who have never set foot in the USA, are not capable of forming an opinion based on a variety of sources (or even the same sources as we rarely are eye-witnesses ourselves)? And even those who have set foot, should have lived there before being able to form an opinion? Is that what you are saying? I don't mind if people who have never set foot outside of the USA have an opinion of 'Europe' (and make clear what they mean by that), because that gives an opportunity to correct the wrong assumptions. One might even learn something.
Most of those arguments you et al chose to ignore.
Sure, if they are only meant to derail the discussion, or make no sense at all except from a bigoted (either sincere or as Devils Advocate) point of view. The comments that did make sense were mostly responded to as far as I followed it, although I do not necessarily agree with all responses from what you call "et al" (who ever that may be to you).
When repeated (far less frequently than the other side repeats theirs) I am scorned for repetitiveness
.
I wouldn't know, but if the remarks were not contributing to furthering the discussion, it makes little sense to repeat them. If you really think you have a point, then it should be open for debate, but then it might need a better presentation than in the shape of an uncommented link that's (deliberately) open to interpretation. People can get tired having to guess what's being suggested.
If you do not understand the point I am making with sarcasm, ask for clarification.
Maybe a suggestion. Placing mostly sarcastic replies gets a bit tiresome.
In this particular case, it was simply mocking the way accidental shootings by cops here are interpreted by you et al. It is always a sign of "deeper" issues, "systemic racism," "cops out of control," etc., never justified or accidental.
Which would be an interesting topic for discussion on its own, if you were not comparing e.g. a man on the ground with his arms raised in the air still being shot (and the policeman reacting that he didn't know why he shot), with police officers who risk their lives in an attempt to stop a potential terrorist. It's such non-nonsensical comparisons that suggests that you do not take the matters or those contributing to the discussion serious.
For the record, I applaud the French cops who took out the SOB.
Yes, they were very brave, and had to do the inevitable. Not because they were trigger happy or preconditioned to expect the worst and shoot first then ask, but because there was no other way.
Listen, I know that we are not going to solve the issues of the world in these threads, so I at least try and use the opportunity to learn about some of the other positions, or inform about my point of view. Who knows, there might be an argument that makes some sense.
Polarization and Isolation is not an honest answer to uncertainty, it's demagogy, we also saw what happened just after the Brexit referendum. People who have worked very hard to contribute to British society, where told by people in the street or on public transportation to get out of the country, purely based on ethnicity. Primitive sentiments.
I can only hope that that is not the prevailing level of discourse on LuLa.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. In the light of this discussion a potentially interesting movie tip:
My name is Kahn.
