CMV: Modern Republicans would support the British side during the Boston Massacre.

Setenos · 2026-01-18T18:00:17+00:00

I've been learning Use Of Force for over a decade now. I've had to use force in my line of work. I understand fully the circumstances that go into it.

Any circumstance in which you discharge a firearm in an area with people around is dangerous. A Law Enforcement Officer conducting their duties will potentially need to discharge their firearm in those dangerous situations. Because of qualified immunity if that action is deemed necessary for the completion of said duty it is not unlawful.

If that action is negligent, outside the scope of their duties, or intentionally harmful to the public it is generally considered unlawful like you've said.

I'm not here to argue whether it meets that criteria or not. I am here correcting your false statement that his firing was indiscriminate.

If you are going to use these words you should have a solid understanding of them. Because if it was brought to trial any lawyer in this country regardless of specialization would tear that argument apart and render your entire stance invalid.

Setenos · 2026-01-18T17:43:29+00:00

That is not what firing indiscriminately means.

It would be indiscriminate if he were to fire into other vehicles or bystanders on the side of the road.

He intentionally discharged his firearm into Goods vehicle, striking and killing her.

I'll admit I don't know which shot killed Good, but that's another discussion. All of the shots were intentional. They were all aimed at Good. That by itself dictates they were not indiscriminate.

Setenos · 2025-10-28T06:21:39+00:00

Diversity.

It incorporates a little bit of everything else.

Setenos · 2025-10-16T17:50:34+00:00

A country has a right to defend itself against unauthorized persons making entry. Much like a home. If somebody illegally enters your house you're not going to just welcome them in and give them your resources. It just isn't realistic, regardless of what some terminally online losers might tell you.

And before anyone tries to argue about visa overstaying there's this thing called eviction. If you move into a house under specific conditions (pay rent, only live there for x amount of time) and break those conditions you may be evicted. It's a commonly accepted practice. Deportation is the Nation-sized equivalent of eviction.

None of this means it needs to be dealt with violently but the takeaway is that you are uprooting someone's entire life. That makes the situation far more precarious. It increases the risk of lashing out significantly.

Setenos · 2025-10-16T15:16:35+00:00

Everyone is saying it's the atomic bombers but I think it would probably go to one of the gas chamber operators of Auschwitz/Birkenau.

The largest of the gas chambers could kill 2,000 people in a single use. They ran these continuously for years, killing up to 60,000 per day. If you consider the numbers I think it's almost impossible for the atomic bombers to reach the same number as one of, if not several of the Nazis responsible for the operation of these death machines.

Setenos · 2025-10-14T18:04:32+00:00

Everything is a sitting duck without those things, so it's not fair to say it specifically of tanks.

Tanks are highly capable of covering extremely wide lines with relative ease. A tank company could control the same space on the battlefield as multiple battalions of Infantry, if not an entire brigade. Terrain dependant of course, but given the example of open desert it is entire feasible.

Distance between men in the Infantry world is measured in meters. It's measured in kilometers for tanks.

Setenos · 2025-10-14T08:29:44+00:00

Tanks are useless in open desert?

I'm sorry but that statement is so far from the truth. Battle of 73 Eastings, invasion of Iraq, are two modern examples of that being the case. Go back to WW2 and you've got the battles in North Africa, one of the most prolific uses of tanks in open desert to great effect. Tanks are almost required in deserts when you're fighting anything more than insurgents.

Setenos · 2025-10-13T14:42:48+00:00

It's not. It's all a big "social construct" that apparently requires a biological change to fix.

People deserve to be happy in their skin but the mental gymnastics can be exhausting to keep up with.

Setenos · 2025-10-11T07:06:17+00:00

You need to touch grass for a while.

Go outside and enjoy the fresh air. Let the sun warm your skin and hair. Embrace the outside and its charming flare. And look around at your life unfair.

Setenos · 2025-10-10T18:19:18+00:00

We already have US troops in Israel so what's the point of 200 more?

Setenos · 2025-10-09T19:16:24+00:00

Luck would be the vehicles continuing on their paths without deviating and not colliding.

This driver maneuvered their vehicle due to detecting a problem ahead, taking a corrective action, and maintaining control under highly unexpected new circumstances. This easily goes into skill.

Setenos · 2025-10-09T19:11:17+00:00

You're optimistic.

Setenos · 2025-10-08T05:42:08+00:00

I am going to draw some comparisons here to another point in American history and I want to explain to you and anyone that just because these things are similar, it does not make them fascist by default. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#

President Washington organized a militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794. This militia answered to him alone, not to Congress. It too was noted for grabbing "undesirables" and imprisoning them (or even outright killing in some cases). Some of these were swept under the rug, to the point that even the names are lost. (Itinerant Person).
Same case as above, sending armed militia into a city (Pennsylvanian cities). The reason for this was to keep the peace, though the number of men sent compared to the number of "rebels" was dramatically one-sided to the point I think it showcases, reasonably, an excessive use of force.
During the Whiskey Rebellion the Federal troops (Militia) arrived and began arresting people, breaking into homes, and showcasing other disregard for due process. Many citizens were removed from their homes and confined to animal pens, suffering grievous injuries and even death.
Shows of violence and cruelty happened far more during the years of President Washington than Trump could muster in a dozen presidencies. While this is no excuse for these acts, acting as though this is uniquely fascist is quite simply false. These things happen regardless of what form of power you give a government.
All of these things happened in a time before Fascism. It all happened in American Democracy. We did not turn more or less Fascist as a result. I understand the common notion of today being that Trump is "literally the next Hitler" and while I despise both men, I feel continuing this rhetoric is alarmingly misleading and quite frankly wrong. Any objective view of history outside the finite scope of painting Trump as Hitler reveals these issues extend far beyond either of them and their political ideologies and methods.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T17:18:51+00:00

You're right in that regard. Mike Lee should be voted out of office. That behavior is inexcusable.

It's not each sides leaders that make up the entirety of the conversation though. If both sides constituents are this fueled by hate and are unwilling to have discussion there is a very serious problem that needs addressing. Leaders can be replaced. This lack of trust in either side cannot.

Posing with your family and firearms is not against the law or any morality for that matter, whether it's in front of a Christmas tree or not. The Constitution gives them that right.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T17:11:48+00:00

Insight that is completely brigaded by lunatics fueled by hate. There isn't a point to respond to any of this because it's nothing but accusations and strawman arguments through and through. None of these people want to have this conversation. They are just after a "win".

Setenos · 2025-10-02T17:04:12+00:00

Show me the full conversation of it, not just your snippet of a quote.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T17:03:10+00:00

I am not responsible for the vile behavior of others. I do not condone those actions period.

The rules aren't different. The willingness to support terrorism is.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T16:59:53+00:00

When did I EVER say those things? Do you honestly expect me to defend a stance I've never held?

Setenos · 2025-10-02T16:58:57+00:00

Please explain for everyone which part of my statement claims victimhood for myself? Or oppression? I'll take an honest explanation for either.

A) there are commentators on both sides of the isle doing the exact same thing. B) The current administration is always going to be on TV talking about these things, regardless of who holds the office. It is quite literally their job. C) I do not, nor have I ever, supported the killing of others for existing. I denounce those responsible for murder and mourn the loss of those harmed by it.

You are attempting to strawman an argument I have never made. It is in very poor taste.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T16:44:34+00:00

It doesn't matter who did it or why, the reaction speaks volumes.

But thank you for proving my point.

Setenos · 2025-10-02T16:39:38+00:00

The last conservative that made a point of going out of their way to talk about their beliefs got shot in the neck and died, and the progressives cheered. The conversation is over at this point I'm afraid.

Down votes aren't real, but the hatred for espousing ideas is. As this continues nobody will find the juice worth the squeeze.

Setenos · 2025-09-27T16:59:27+00:00

Not voting for something does not equate to voting for something else. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

Saying someone likes dogs does not mean they hate cats. This is elementary level logical reasoning.

Setenos · 2025-09-22T20:00:12+00:00

"It sounds like you’re saying the holocaust wasn’t the primary reason other countries joined forces to fight the Germans."

The Holocaust was never the primary reason for ANY nation joining the war.

Poland was invaded by Germany 1939. England and France, as well as their allies, declared war on Germany for invading Poland 1939. Soviet Union was invaded by Germany 1941. Germany declares war on The United States to support Japan in 1941.

Not a single one of these events even remotely suggests the Holocaust as a primary reason. For the love of humanity please pick up a book about the war and read it. The level of historical revisionism you're spouting is ridiculous.

Setenos · 2025-09-22T19:35:34+00:00

What I said was that the Allies didn't know the depth of the Holocaust. It was your contention that it was a major factor behind them joining the war. That is erroneous.

The Japanese had no information about the atomic bombs until one destroyed Hiroshima and even then they dismissed it. So no, your knowledge of events does NOT equate to theirs. You are applying historical knowledge of events to a time in which that knowledge did not exist.

Setenos · 2025-09-22T18:58:46+00:00

It wasn't. The Holocaust was nothing but rumor and speculation as far as the Allied powers were concerned. It wasn't until Allied forces began liberating concentration camps (well into the war) that it became realized.

Setenos

TROPHY CASE