270 pts ยท November 9, 2013
If you say so, I disagree, and believe you're ignoring what I'm trying to say, so good luck with your next conversation...
Huh?
Weren't trying to be violent, just willing to
4/4 an important distinction to make if you want to convince their friends they're the ones making things worse Nuance isn't lost everyone
3/4 them dangerous and criminals. But not terrorists. Their goal was better described as be assholes, not cause damage, and injure people.
2/3 Angry and violent protesters has a much more accurate meaning and connotation. They we're trying to be violent, just will to. That makes
You'll never win hearts nor minds if you refuse to acknowledge gray areas. I assume Calling them terrorists makes you feel virtuous but 1/2
Caused the collision but the truck clearly tried to be an asshole intentionally
Actually... I just noticed the SUV has it's hazards flashing. The Truck instagated the collision. He's just a douchebag, the SUV caused the
If he wanted to ram the other car, why would he do so only once, and only after it looks like the SUV left the lane first?
He was trying to be a dick, but there's nothing showing him trying to hit the other vehicle. Especially given there no further anything....
Moves into the spot, unsafely close trying to block out the SUV, then the more common video show the truck blocking then pushing the SUV
Yeah, I wanted a better angle because the first was trash. /a/QabyBe6 I had to go looking for this one, suv leaves, truck...
The collision, nor did they move to the shoulderas they were supposed to, but the SUV hit the truck *before* the truck made everything worse
No, not only did I NOT say that, but I said they were acting illegally. But they simply didn't cause the collision. The truck didnt avoid...
what view point did I assert?
I only have a few 30s clips to make suggestions from so I cant know the ideal place but I do know that hitting another car isn't even top 10
Ok, but what does that mean though?
They're driving on the freeway, someone could easily have died, including bystanders. They're both assholes. Just different flavors of shit.
5/5 both are pathetic penis wrinkles acting without regard for the dangers of driving. they both could have killed someone on the freeway.
4/5 avoid the collision (According to TX law) the SUV was reckless, but the truck was clearly trying to block them out illegally. Either way
3/4 the truck was supposed to yield and allow them to merge. Or if the SUV did hit the truck, the truck should have moved to the shoulder to
2/3 push past you in a hallway, you don't want me to so you shave me, I'm not being violent. The SUV would have been smart to go around, but
According to TX law, the truck was not only following to close, but is supposed to yield to the car on it's left. Eg if I try to 1/2
But they wanted to look tough instead of avoiding a collision.
They tried to merge into a space where they knew a very angry person was driving a larger vehicle. It was clear the truck ws dangerous....
Nah, that's an imgur thing... mindless srcrolling->mindless outrage. A lot of places arent quite this bad. It's why I try to push back a bit
Hitting a car instead of allowing it to merge seems violent to me.
Right but that would leave the same question, can it be both or is it an exclusive or? The issue is ambiguity. I'd argue they mean either or
Agreed the rhetoric doesn't match reality. The better talking point would be the numerous traffic infractions. Law and order right?
If you say so, I disagree, and believe you're ignoring what I'm trying to say, so good luck with your next conversation...
Huh?
Weren't trying to be violent, just willing to
4/4 an important distinction to make if you want to convince their friends they're the ones making things worse Nuance isn't lost everyone
3/4 them dangerous and criminals. But not terrorists. Their goal was better described as be assholes, not cause damage, and injure people.
2/3 Angry and violent protesters has a much more accurate meaning and connotation. They we're trying to be violent, just will to. That makes
You'll never win hearts nor minds if you refuse to acknowledge gray areas. I assume Calling them terrorists makes you feel virtuous but 1/2
Caused the collision but the truck clearly tried to be an asshole intentionally
Actually... I just noticed the SUV has it's hazards flashing. The Truck instagated the collision. He's just a douchebag, the SUV caused the
If he wanted to ram the other car, why would he do so only once, and only after it looks like the SUV left the lane first?
He was trying to be a dick, but there's nothing showing him trying to hit the other vehicle. Especially given there no further anything....
Moves into the spot, unsafely close trying to block out the SUV, then the more common video show the truck blocking then pushing the SUV
Yeah, I wanted a better angle because the first was trash. /a/QabyBe6 I had to go looking for this one, suv leaves, truck...
The collision, nor did they move to the shoulderas they were supposed to, but the SUV hit the truck *before* the truck made everything worse
No, not only did I NOT say that, but I said they were acting illegally. But they simply didn't cause the collision. The truck didnt avoid...
what view point did I assert?
I only have a few 30s clips to make suggestions from so I cant know the ideal place but I do know that hitting another car isn't even top 10
Ok, but what does that mean though?
They're driving on the freeway, someone could easily have died, including bystanders. They're both assholes. Just different flavors of shit.
5/5 both are pathetic penis wrinkles acting without regard for the dangers of driving. they both could have killed someone on the freeway.
4/5 avoid the collision (According to TX law) the SUV was reckless, but the truck was clearly trying to block them out illegally. Either way
3/4 the truck was supposed to yield and allow them to merge. Or if the SUV did hit the truck, the truck should have moved to the shoulder to
2/3 push past you in a hallway, you don't want me to so you shave me, I'm not being violent. The SUV would have been smart to go around, but
According to TX law, the truck was not only following to close, but is supposed to yield to the car on it's left. Eg if I try to 1/2
But they wanted to look tough instead of avoiding a collision.
They tried to merge into a space where they knew a very angry person was driving a larger vehicle. It was clear the truck ws dangerous....
Nah, that's an imgur thing... mindless srcrolling->mindless outrage. A lot of places arent quite this bad. It's why I try to push back a bit
Hitting a car instead of allowing it to merge seems violent to me.
Right but that would leave the same question, can it be both or is it an exclusive or? The issue is ambiguity. I'd argue they mean either or
Agreed the rhetoric doesn't match reality. The better talking point would be the numerous traffic infractions. Law and order right?