What is the definition of a hypothetical statement?
A hypothetical statement is an idea, circumstance, etc. and it is a noun.

So, your circumstance would justify it.
Face it, those are your words, you posted it.

"Let's say" bad_luck is able to determine right from wrong. "In that case" he wouldn't ever be wrong. Hypothetically speaking!

That's funny.... I remember BL continued arguing the point saying rioting is OK because the businesses are covered by insurance.

Yep, he did.   He chose a retarded stance and stood by it(as he tends to do).   Now, because it doesn't quite align with his "We should do away with the death penalty because we MIGHT kill an innocent", he's trying to weasel out of it. 

Posted by moy23 on 1/24/2016 5:58:00 AM (view original):
That's funny.... I remember BL continued arguing the point saying rioting is OK because the businesses are covered by insurance.

Context. I said racism in the justice system was worse than damage to business property.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2016 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 1/24/2016 5:58:00 AM (view original):
That's funny.... I remember BL continued arguing the point saying rioting is OK because the businesses are covered by insurance.

Context. I said racism in the justice system was worse than damage to business property.

So it's OK to riot and destroy other people's personal property in the name of fighting racism?

No, I said the rioting was the lesser of two evils.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
No, I said the rioting was the lesser of two evils.

No.  You very specifically said rioting was OK.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2015 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2015 8:13:00 AM (view original):
Of course it hasn't been confirmed.    First, we riot.   Then we get the facts.  That's the process.

Correction.  We just riot and blame the cops for forcing us to riot.  No need to care about the facts either before or after.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the justice system in America is racist against blacks. Let's also say, for the sake of argument, that this racism had been essentially ignored until black people started protesting and rioting. And finally, let's say that the attention brought from the protesting and rioting actually delivered a meaningful change in the way the justice system treats black people.

In that case, would the rioting be ok?

I say yes.

Hmmmm....looks like BL is in a corner.   What will he do?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/24/2016 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):
No, I said the rioting was the lesser of two evils.

No.  You very specifically said rioting was OK.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2015 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2015 8:13:00 AM (view original):
Of course it hasn't been confirmed.    First, we riot.   Then we get the facts.  That's the process.

Correction.  We just riot and blame the cops for forcing us to riot.  No need to care about the facts either before or after.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the justice system in America is racist against blacks. Let's also say, for the sake of argument, that this racism had been essentially ignored until black people started protesting and rioting. And finally, let's say that the attention brought from the protesting and rioting actually delivered a meaningful change in the way the justice system treats black people.

In that case, would the rioting be ok?

I say yes.

Two different posts. Wasn't saying anything about business property there.

This is where I referenced insurance:

Quote post by bad_luck on 4/29/2015 10:55:00 PM:

The police already admitted that they ****** up. I'm sure they didn't mean to sever his spine. They didn't intend to kill him. But they did **** up. They did abuse him. And they did neglect to get him medical treatment in time to save his life.

This is where the majority of the outrage should be directed. Cars can be replaced. Buildings are insured.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2016 6:00:00 PM (view original):
This is where I referenced insurance:

Quote post by bad_luck on 4/29/2015 10:55:00 PM:

The police already admitted that they ****** up. I'm sure they didn't mean to sever his spine. They didn't intend to kill him. But they did **** up. They did abuse him. And they did neglect to get him medical treatment in time to save his life.

This is where the majority of the outrage should be directed. Cars can be replaced. Buildings are insured.

You are massively retarded for attempting to justify rioting because damages and losses incurred are covered by insurance.

I'm sure the business owners in the area love to pay more for their insurance because of the rioters.

I bet it was the business owners dressed up as cops did the deed.

...meanwhile some people will lose their job since they have no way to get to work.  Maybe they shot him.

BL knows he's taken a retarded stance.  You can't say:

1.  We have to do away with the death penalty because we might kill one innocent person.

And then say:

2.  If rioting could provide justice for people who are discriminated against, it's just.

Simply because rioting doesn't affect only the guilty.   Innocents are harmed.

BL, while an idiot, knows he's ****** himself.  

Take a few days off, BL.   No one will miss you.