George Floyd Riots: A Possible False Flag?

[Epicenter]

All those bad guys you mentioned are all men who achieved greatness.

Only one who has achieved it can change the world or at the very least within their sphere of influence, whether the outcome is good or bad is another story altogether.

I don't think that word makes much sense in this context unless you have psychopathic tendencies.

I would use words like "power, influence, independence"

With "greatness" we normally associate some form of moral standards. That is why I guess most people would not think that that word is used properly here.

 

[Spaz]

I don't think that word makes much sense in this context unless you have psychopathic tendencies.

I would use words like "power, influence, independence"

With "greatness" we normally accociate some form of moral standards. That is why I guess most people would not think that that word is used properly here.

Morals or what is right belongs to those who write history, and those who write history are the victors, those who lost will of course either be demonised or erased.

It is the way of the world.

 

[Epicenter]

Morals or what is right belongs to those who write history, and those who write history are the victors, those who lost will of course either be demonised or erased.

It is the way of the world.

I kind of agree partly. Yes to some extent because these guys lost they don't get the title "great". So if you use a word in a different way than what is normally understood it's good to give your definition beforehand so there is no unnecessary confusion.

For example if a nazi says: "I find Hitler great" there will be no confusion in understanding what he means because we know where he comes from.

 

[Spaz]

I kind of agree partly. Yes to some extent because these guys lost they don't get the title "great". So if you use a word in a different way than what is normally understood it's good to give your definition beforehand so there is no unnecessary confusion.

For example if a nazi says: "I find Hitler great" there will be no confusion in understanding what he means because we know where he comes from.

I think you misunderstood me, when I say greatness, it means a man who has the ability to influence large sections of society.

For example, if Trump says something outrageous such as suggesting that the moon is actually fake and been placed there by aliens to monitor earth, some of his hardcore followers will believe it.

There is nothing to be confused about.

 

[Epicenter]

I think you misunderstood me, when I say greatness, it means a man who has the ability to influence large sections of society.

For example, if Trump says something outrageous such as suggesting that the moon is actually fake and been placed there by aliens to monitor earth, his hardcore followers will believe it.

There is nothing to be confused about.

No I don't think I am confused. You explained "your" definition and I understood. I said myslef that you use it as "influence" so no confusion here.

I just added some other stuff that may not be interesting for you. So it's ok.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Sorry you have some agenda and don't want to accept the importance of simple statistic. I gave you so many examples but you are stuck with your believes.

I gave you the example of black crime, of japan, of irak war. You didn't even refute my examples.

Because I’m talking about gender and violence. You’re saying no one cares about any type of violence except homicide, and gave those examples as ‘evidence’ of that when in reality those have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Violence isn’t limited to homicide, it’s just that homicide is arguably the worst form of violence. But it being the worst form doesn’t mean “most important” because “most important” isn’t even a factor that comes into play here because it’s not even about the supposed ‘worst’. Those examples are comparing apples and oranges; they’re not the same thing. It makes no sense for the argument at hand. Just non sequitur after non sequitur. You didn’t even refute anything that I said either, you just ignored it and tried to dismiss and deflect.

If you want me to address your claim that men are more violent than women, fine, I’ll bite: women commit more violence than men (as shown by the stats I pulled up), but men are overrepresented in cases of homicide because men are simply more present at the extremes of any thing; it’s the variability hypothesis at play here. In addition, men are far less likely to report violence against them, especially when it’s committed by a woman.

There you go, I **** on you with the whole women being more nurturing thing, and I **** on you with this thing too. You’re talking out of your ass with generalizations that were perpetuated by society’s pedestalization of women, and use stereotypes, logical fallacies, and textbook ego defense mechanisms to justify your bull**** belief in order to save face. You’re just wrong dude. No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.

 

[Spaz]

No I don't think I am confused. You explained "your" definition and I understood. I said myslef that you use it as "influence" so no confusion here.

I just added some other stuff that may not be interesting for you. So it's ok.

It's not whether it's interesting to me or not, I'm just stating a fact which you glossed over because you wish greatness to be tied to morality.

That's ur interest.

I'll even add 1 more to muddle ur self-made narrative, all great man are monsters, one way or the other they were, it's just that the victors had the luxury of wiping that out from history.

Only a monster can fight another.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

It seems that u r convinced that ur judgement supercedes mine and have not seen the wisdom in my advice to you.

And yet I lose nothing.

Spaz man, you don’t have the perspective to understand what’s actually being talked about. You (mis)interpret statements in whatevere way you want so that you can think about how much ‘wiser’ you are than the rest of us ‘plebs’, all the whole not realizing that you’re only suffering from minor delusions of grandeur.

 

[Epicenter]

Because I’m talking about gender and violence. You’re saying no one cares about any type of violence except homicide, and gave those examples as ‘evidence’ of that when in reality those have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Violence isn’t limited to homicide, it’s just that homicide is arguably the worst form of violence. But it being the worst form doesn’t mean “most important” because “most important” isn’t even a factor that comes into play here because it’s not even about the supposed ‘worst’. Those examples are comparing apples and oranges; they’re not the same thing. It makes no sense for the argument at hand. Just non sequitur after non sequitur. You didn’t even refute anything that I said either, you just ignored it and tried to dismiss and deflect.

If you want me to address your claim that men are more violent than women, fine, I’ll bite: women commit more violence than men (as shown by the stats I pulled up), but men are overrepresented in cases of homicide because men are simply more present at the extremes of any thing; it’s the variability hypothesis at play here. In addition, men are far less likely to report violence against them, especially when it’s committed by a woman.

There you go, I **** on you with the whole women being more nurturing thing, and I **** on you with this thing too. You’re talking out of your ass with generalizations that were perpetuated by society’s pedestalization of women, and use stereotypes, logical fallacies, and textbook ego defense mechanisms to justify your bull**** belief in order to save face. You’re just wrong dude. No if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.

Imho
You are biased that is the difference between us. I try to argue outcome independent. That is why I brought examples outside of our discussion. You are not able to do it because you are invested in the topic. Your identity is connected to the topic.

You are not able to make example outside of this topic. In a discussion that can be helpful.

You are like the leftists when it is said by non leftists:

Black murder rate ist this........

Leftist come then with but what about the violent crime?

No one gives really a **** because the point is made already. It's good enough.
Everybody knows what is going on.

Anyway we don't get anywhere. You are invested in that topic too much. Too much ego. Imho.

 

[Spaz]

Spaz man, you don’t have the perspective to understand what’s actually being talked about. You (mis)interpret statements in whatevere way you want so that you can think about how much ‘wiser’ you are than the rest of us ‘plebs’, all the whole not realizing that you’re only suffering from minor delusions of grandeur.

It's because ur perspective comes from 21 years of life on this earth which for all intents and purposes is only actually worth 4 years.

And from that 4 years, it's only through reading or gathering knowledge from peers or family.

Even if you dare say ur IQ is 500, your perspective to many many men who has worked and lived much longer will mean little because it is little.

 

[Epicenter]

It's not whether it's interesting to me or not, I'm just stating a fact which you glossed over because you wish greatness to be tied to morality.

That's ur interest.

I'll even add 1 more to muddle ur self-made narrative, all great man are monsters, one way or the other they were, it's just that the victors had the luxury of wiping that out from history.

Only a monster can fight another.

No I understand you perfectly. I am just saying you used the word in a non usual way for the society (not me) That's it.

It has been settled.

 

[Epicenter]

It's because ur perspective comes from 21 years of life on this earth which for all intents and purposes is only actually worth 4 years.

And from that 4 years, it's only through reading or gathering knowledge from peers or family.

Even if you dare say ur IQ is 500, your perspective to many many men who has worked and lived much longer will mean little because it is little.

The millenials say "Ok boomer" I guess they would have used it here but that
does not mean much.

 

[Spaz]

No I understand you perfectly. I am just saying you used the word in a non usual way for the society (not me) That's it.

It has been settled.

Society are fishes in the sea swimming happily.

The sharks are the ones making the rules, just to keep them happy.

 

[Spaz]

The millenials say "Ok boomer" I guess they would have used it here but that
does not mean much.

Kids will always want to prove that they are right, it is normal.

When you were a kid, you also thought you knew everything until you worked and experienced life.

 

[Epicenter]

Society are fishes in the sea swimming happily.

The sharks are the ones making the rules, just to keep them happy.

I kind of agree to that mantra.

I could have asked about the dolphins but maybe next time.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Imho
You are biased that is the difference between us. I try to argue outcome independent. That is why I brought examples outside of our discussion. You are not able to do it because you are invested in the topic. Your identity is connected to the topic.

You are not able to make example outside of this topic. In a discussion that can be helpful.

You are like the leftists when it is said by non leftists:

Black murder rate ist this........

Leftist come then with but what about the violent crime?

No one gives really a **** because the point is made already. It's good enough.
Everybody knows what is going on.

Anyway we don't get anywhere. You are invested in that topic too much. Too much ego. Imho.

This coming from a dude who used the ego defense mechanisms that every psychology student has heard of lol

It's not even about the argument to me as it is about promoting bluepill ideas and being shown you're wrong about the nuances and still disagreeing without even giving evidence to the counter. Broad statements and generalizations are not evidence. You gave 1 statistic and dismissed all the others I gave lol



































































































































































































































































































































Imho.

 

[Epicenter]

Kids will always want to prove that they are right, it is normal.

When you were a kid, you also thought you knew everything until you worked and experienced life.

Some say some people are agreeable and some not that much. Some say T level plays a role sometimes.

 

[Spaz]

I kind of agree to that mantra.

I could have asked about the dolphins but maybe next time.

The dophins eats the fishes too.

They're just natural enemies with the sharks haha

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

It's because ur perspective comes from 21 years of life on this earth which for all intents and purposes is only actually worth 4 years.

And from that 4 years, it's only through reading or gathering knowledge from peers or family.

Even if you dare say ur IQ is 500, your perspective to many many men who has worked and lived much longer will mean little because it is little.

Kids will always want to prove that they are right, it is normal.

When you were a kid, you also thought you knew everything until you worked and experienced life.

My perspective is inclusive of all of those men on here because I always look at them and those they argue with before taking a stance. And the longer I live, the more experience I have, and the more people I talk to for wisdom, the more I come to realize that I was right all along. I've only gotten better at talking about it lol

 

[Spaz]

Some say some people are agreeable and some not that much. Some say T level plays a role sometimes.

It's because they are sheltered, try asking a kid from the slums, he'd be more adult like in his perspectives, superbly cunning and resourceful too.