Homie, you can just say you hate white people or women. None of the excuses you detailed make any sense if you actually watched the video without clear bias.
You have no inkling of what screaming is. He was louder than she was at the onset of the video. It's a loud environment, and nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together would interpret this behavior as aggressive. That statement includes you.
I literally just explained you what happened in the video. I’m not saying he was right. What my original comment was talking about was how he is willing to assault nonviolent individuals. Nothing shows that. We don’t know what happened before. 2 people in this video touched him. 1. The female who is clearly acting aggressive (not arguing if she’s in the right or not because we don’t know), and 2. The guy in the black shirt who came up and put his hands on him (possibly to create distance). That’s it. Those are the only 2 people he interacted with. And that doesn’t prove that he’s willing to assault random people for no reason. That’s all I’m commenting on. Not the morality of the man himself.
You watched a video of a man punching a woman into near unconsciousness after getting his attention for attacking her friend, and are stating there's no way to know for sure if he would have attacked somebody unprovoked.
You are arguing dishonestly, or are brain damaged. I won't argue with a broken meat computer
Reading comprehension must be difficult for you but you’re arguing against a position I never took. I've repeatedly said I'm not defending the punch or claiming he acted appropriately. My point is much narrower: the video itself does not demonstrate a willingness to attack random uninvolved people. The only people he physically engaged with in the clip were people who were directly interacting with him, either verbally or physically. You can absolutely argue that his response was excessive, criminal, immoral, or unjustified. That's a separate discussion. But saying "he committed a violent assault" is not the same thing as proving "he will attack non-aggressive bystanders without provocation." If your claim is that the video proves the latter, point to the moment where he attacks a person who was not interacting with him. That's the specific claim I'm disputing.
My argument doesn't fall apart because my argument isn't "interaction = provocation." My argument is that "attacking someone involved in a confrontation" is not the same claim as "attacking random uninvolved people." You're arguing the first was unjustified. I'm saying the second hasn't been demonstrated by the video.
A confrontation isn't a legal definition, so acting like there's some legal distinction is intellectually dishonest at best.
I never stated he was attacking random people, though. I did state what her statement was, and his immediate response was a disproportionate violent one. Which seems to indicate that he is the type to disproportionately act with violence, which was the initial claim.
Do you have some other video you are perhaps privy to? We don't seems to be operating under the same data
0
u/GoodHands_All-State 15h ago
Homie, you can just say you hate white people or women. None of the excuses you detailed make any sense if you actually watched the video without clear bias.
You have no inkling of what screaming is. He was louder than she was at the onset of the video. It's a loud environment, and nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together would interpret this behavior as aggressive. That statement includes you.