Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
SaysWho?

3 men, teen arrested for allegedly planning attack on Muslim community in upstate New York

Recommended Posts

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/3-men-teen-arrested-allegedly-planning-attack-muslim-community-upstate-n961331

 

190122-mugs-muslim-community-bomb-ew-705

Vincent Vetromile, 19, of Greece, New York, Brian Colaneri, 20, of Gates, New York and Andrew Crysel of East Rochester, New York, arrested after planning to bomb a Muslim community in upstate New York according to authorities.

 

Quote

The 16-year-old boy was reported to police in Greece, New York, because he was allegedly showing a photo of a schoolmate who, he told others, looked "like the next school shooter."

 

Police then discovered after interviewing the boy that he was allegedly working with three men to attack Islamberg.

 

"The initial investigation was about the comment made by the student," Greece Police Chief Patrick D. Phelan said at a press conference Tuesday. "And then our investigation took us to this plot that we had no idea about."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only they were wearing Muslim clothes you’d know they were planning an attack!

 

Wrong thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on these photos, I'm going to assume that the desire to commit domestic terrorism results from the inability to grow proper facial hair?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

If only they were wearing Muslim clothes you’d know they were planning an attack!

 

Wrong thread? 

 

Is seems looking like a school shooter will do instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Commodore D said:

 

 

Is seems looking like a school shooter will do instead.

 

Were you Fuhrer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

Based on these photos, I'm going to assume that the desire to commit domestic terrorism results from the inability to grow proper facial hair?  

Its why i dont switch sides...

if i ever hit puberty and can grow beyond Joe Dirt levels of facial hair...watch out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were young adult white males at an anti-abortion rally wearing MAGA hats then we would have known they posed no threat and they just wanted to paint unicorns and hug kittens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

If they were young adult white males at an anti-abortion rally wearing MAGA hats then we would have known they posed no threat and they just wanted to paint unicorns and hug kittens. 

 

It's just a meaningless phrase that holds many meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

It's just a meaningless phrase that holds many meanings.

 

It's definitely not indicative of anything, most definitely not political speech. It also definitely doesn't at least indicate you are an ignorant POS. :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

It's definitely not indicative of anything, most definitely not political speech. It also definitely doesn't at least indicate you are an ignorant POS. :p 

That’s pretty disingenuous and uncharitable of you both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

That’s pretty disingenuous and uncharitable of you both. 

Which I expect out of ONE of them :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

That’s pretty disingenuous and uncharitable of you both. 

 

Well, technically I'm not done in the other thread - but I am kidding here, s'all good. :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Well, technically I'm not done in the other thread - but I am kidding here, s'all good. :p 

At my expense, mocking me with things I never said nor implied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

At my expense, mocking me with things I never said nor implied. 

 

I'm mocking the reductive version of your argument, not you or your actual argument specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm mocking the reductive version of your argument, not you or your actual argument specifically.

I guess you’re right, boys will be boys.  Carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

I guess you’re right, boys will be boys.  

 

That doesn't even address what I said. As I said, mocking a dumb version of an argument is completely normal in terms of making jokes. I never said what I posted in here was your actual argument you are actually trying to make in the other thread.

 

So not sure how your post is relevant to mine that you quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

That doesn't even address what I said. As I said, mocking a dumb version of an argument is completely normal in terms of making jokes. I never said what I posted in here was your actual argument you are actually trying to make. 

I think it went right over your head.  😘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

I think it went right over your head.  😘

 

I figured you were quoting the argument that people use when men behave poorly, using "boys will be boys" as an excuse. It's derisive and doesn't apply to my post.

 

Me judging MAGA hat wearers and you saying my argument is "boys will be boys" (if that is in fact the joke you were making) isn't the reductive version of my argument (as I was doing with yours) so whatever it is going over my head, I'm happy to hear the explanation. :)

 

If you were just pointing out another version of a reductive version of an argument as a mocking joke, then okay, I'm somewhat with you there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I figured you were quoting the argument that people use when men behave poorly, using "boys will be boys" as an excuse. It's derisive and doesn't apply to my post.

 

Me judging MAGA hat wearers and you saying my argument is "boys will be boys" (if that is in fact the joke you were making) isn't the reductive version of my argument (as I was doing with yours) so whatever it is going over my head, I'm happy to hear the explanation. :)

 

If you were just pointing out another version of a reductive version of an argument as a mocking joke, then okay, I'm somewhat with you there. 

The both of you engaging in mocking another user (uncharitably so) and then saying it’s just a dumbed down version of their argument (which it’s not) is on equal grounds as me mocking the mocking as ‘boys will be boys’.  

In other words, it’s me being disingenuous and uncharitable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

The both of you engaging in mocking another user (uncharitably so) and then saying it’s just a dumbed down version of their argument (which it’s not) is on equal grounds as me mocking the mocking as ‘boys will be boys’.  

 

In other words, it’s me being disingenuous and uncharitable. 

 

Then you aren't really comprehending what I'm saying. How is it not a dumb version of the more nuanced argument you are trying to make in the other thread? And I can otherwise mock who I want, who is to determine whether it is charitable or uncharitable? I felt what I said was funny, and charitable enough given it was meant in jest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Then you aren't really comprehending what I'm saying. How is it not a dumb version of the more nuanced argument you are trying to make in the other thread? And I can otherwise mock who I want, who is to determine whether it is charitable or uncharitable? I felt what I said was funny, and charitable enough given it was meant in jest. 

how is mocking not an oversimplified version of bullying aka boys will be boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

how is mocking not an oversimplified version of bullying aka boys will be boys?

 

Mocking a reductive version of someone's argument is called a joke, not bullying, especially when it was clearly over the top and meant in jest. But nice try conflating joking to bullying. You seem to make the mistake of conflation a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Mocking a reductive version of someone's argument is called a joke, not bullying. 

calling what you guys were doing as 'boys will be boys' is a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boyle5150 said:

calling what you guys were doing as 'boys will be boys' is a joke. 

 

I didn't say "boys will be boys" isn't a joke. 

 

I said that mocking is not an oversimplified version of bullying in this case/context. We're addressing two different things. 

 

And "boys will be boys" isn't a reduction version of my argument in the other thread, so there's no joke there either. I just don't get what went over my head exactly when you first said it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I didn't say "boys will be boys" isn't a joke. 

 

I said that mocking is not an oversimplified version of bullying in this case/context. We're addressing two different things. 

 

And "boys will be boys" isn't a reduction version of my argument in the other thread, so there's no joke there either. I just don't get what went over my head exactly when you first said it. 

sure it is.  Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't.  Now if you want to say that it wasn't the intent, then I will grant you that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

sure it is.  Just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't.  Now if you want to say that it wasn't the intent, then I will grant you that.  

 

"Sure it is". What part is that in reference to? Asking genuinely. 

 

And I'm saying it isn't bullying because I have explained how it is a joke instead. You have not explained how it's bullying NOR how it's not a joke. I'm explaining myself. I'm saying mocking a reductive version of someone's argument is a joke; it's literally peoples' twitter burn game - it's for THE JOKES. It's not bullying. If it is, I'm asking you to explain to me how it is. If it's so clearly bullying, you should be able to explain so very easily to someone else (me, in this case). I'm waiting for how it ISN'T joking but it IS bullying instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

This is an even worse version of the @SaysWho? and @Boyle5150 debate yesterday, somehow.

 

I'm not sure even what I'm debating. I made jokes, was not bullying, and @Boyle5150 thinks I am not making jokes and am instead bullying him but won't explain how that's the case. 

 

Separately, somehow randomly saying in response to me that "boys will be boys" is equivalent to me mocking his reductive argument in this thread. Trust me, I am trying to understand here. :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×