Forum: Internet Links
Topic: SC church shootings
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,07:44
< http://news.yahoo.com/shootin....97.html >

Let's start by pointing out that the shooter is nuts and needs to be caught or killed. Preferably caught so we can hear the motivation. That being said, the coverage of the shooting and the response is irritating.

Immediately it's being called a hate crime and race based. The MSM is running with that so tensions will be high and people might get hurt because of it. Meanwhile, nobody knows this asshole's true intent. He might hate God, he might have randomly picked a building to murder people, he might have had a beef with someone there, etc.

Why do we need to immediately label this a hate crime just because the victims are black and the shooter white? This is the arbitrary bullshit Malcolm talks about elsewhere. Why stir the pot unnecessarily? Labeling crimes like this and sensationalizing them creates more hatred. It's not helping to unite anyone.

QUOTE
Community organizer Christopher Cason said he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated.

"I am very tired of people telling me that I don't have the right to be angry," Cason said. "I am very angry right now."


Really sir? People have been telling you that you don't have a right to be angry? Bullshit. All I ever get told about by the MSM and politicians and civil rights leaders is how angry black folks are and how they have a right to be, and how honkeys should just shut the fuck up and accept it because being white means you live in utopia.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,07:50
QUOTE
We need action. There's a race problem in our country. There's a gun problem in our country. We need to act on them quickly.

There's a people like you problem in our country.

QUOTE
Today I feel like it's 9-11 again

Goddamnit, no!  We'll have another useless federal agency created.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,07:54
Obama is going to introduce the Department of Racial Harmony.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,08:00

(Leisher @ Jun. 18 2015,10:44)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Community organizer Christopher Cason said he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated.

"I am very tired of people telling me that I don't have the right to be angry," Cason said. "I am very angry right now."

This pretty much means the guy doesn't actually have a job, right?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,08:02
You racist bastard! Obama was a community organizer!
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2015,08:06
Exactly my point.  It drove me nuts when people were saying Obama had more executive experience as a "community organizer" than Palin had as a governor, but it drives me nutser that all those people who said it then now deny saying it.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,08:08
I remember when they said that shit. Fucking morons.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 18 2015,08:56
When congresswoman Giffords was shot in AZ they waited about the same amount of time before declaring it was probably a Tea Party member, so at least their consistent with their irresponsibility.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 18 2015,09:54

(Leisher @ Jun. 18 2015,09:44)
QUOTE
Labeling crimes like this and sensationalizing them creates more hatred higher ratings.

I fixed it for you.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 18 2015,10:33

(Leisher @ Jun. 18 2015,10:44)
QUOTE
Immediately it's being called a hate crime and race based. The MSM is running with that so tensions will be high and people might get hurt because of it. Meanwhile, nobody knows this asshole's true intent.

Turns out there may have been reason to label it such
QUOTE
Witnesses say the gunman stood up and said he was there "to shoot black people," a law enforcement official said. The shooter is also thought to have used a handgun, according to the official.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,11:16
< Caught >.
QUOTE
... president [Obama] said lawmakers should address the easy availability of guns, which he said helps make such tragedies possible, adding that he has “had to make statements like this too many times.”

Just fuck you.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 18 2015,11:46
QUOTE
... adding that he has “had to make statements like this too many times.”

If you don't like the job don't run for office.

No sympathy from me for President Whiny Bitch



Posted by Vince on Jun. 18 2015,18:46
Anybody remember watching Reagan give his Challenger tragedy address?  Anybody else really miss having someone like that in office?
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,18:58

(Vince @ Jun. 18 2015,20:46)
QUOTE
Anybody remember watching Reagan give his Challenger tragedy address?  Anybody else really miss having someone like that in office?

He handled that better than B. Rock handled this.  I can't believe I'm defending Reagan, either.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 18 2015,19:54
< He wanted to start a race war. >

His immediate capture and his admission will help this wound heal rather quickly.

It'll also help curb any potential "related violence".

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2015,20:23
QUOTE
He wanted to start a race war.

QUOTE
When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah yeah yeah hey

Do you, don't you want me to love you
I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you
Tell me tell me tell me come on tell me the answer
Well you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer

Now helter skelter helter skelter
Helter skelter yeah
Ooh!



Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 21 2015,09:07
< Orem, Utah baseball team oops. >


Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 21 2015,09:32

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 21 2015,10:18
QUOTE
People flocked to Twitter on Friday to lob angry comments at the team using #CaucasianHeritageNight. Melanie Monroe, a Hispanic, said every night is Caucasian heritage night.

Except for these other nights.

Filipino American History Month, LGBT History Month : October

Black History Month: February

Irish-American evil white people History Month: March

Jewish American evil people History Month: May

Nat'l Hispanic Heritage Month: mid-September through mid-October

Only jeebus knows how many others.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 22 2015,05:59
The irony is the night wasn't to "celebrate" whites but poke at stereotypes.  If you read the list of what they had in mind, it'd be like having watermelon and fried chicken at your African American Night.

Yet no one is angry at the poked at stereotypes, unlike if it were any other race being poked.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 22 2015,07:05
How dare white people.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 22 2015,11:30
< Flag > probably gone.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 23 2015,11:47
< Fuckwits > teach statues a lesson.
QUOTE
The statues were of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, General Robert E. Lee and Texas commander Albert Sydney Johnson.


Lee's words on slavery:
QUOTE
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.

Granted, the words right after it are:
QUOTE
I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 23 2015,11:52
It'd be a HUGE gesture if black people would spray paint Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as well.

Part of the solution is to stop pretending only people with white skin are the problem.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 24 2015,10:21
< No flag for you >, Dukes of Hazzard fans.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,10:11
< Confederate flag = bad >.  ISIL flag = ok.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,10:31

(Malcolm @ Jun. 24 2015,12:21)
QUOTE
< No flag for you >, Dukes of Hazzard fans.

< No Dukes anymore >, either.



Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 08 2015,12:17
< Flag causes idiocy >.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2015,10:32
That guy has a point though.

How did the Confederate Flag factor into the shooter? Why is that flag a symbol of racism other than just a matter of opinion? It's a legit part of history. Banning it is censorship.

I don't understand where this push to ban the flag came from nor why it has so much traction. You're not "healing" anyone by banning the flag, and you're actually doing the opposite.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2015,10:35
Absolutely nothing bad can come from scrubbing from existence the parts of history that we don't like.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2015,10:50
QUOTE
Absolutely nothing bad can come from scrubbing from existence the parts of history that we don't like.


I mean, it's BAD!!!! Let's get rid of it. It's not we can learn from it and avoid making the same mistakes!

Hell, the fucktards running this country openly state how they're trying to mimic Europe because Europe's doing SO WELL...

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2015,11:18

QUOTE
“I don’t see that this incident has any bearing on the flag or the flag has bearing on the incident,” he said of the shooting. “Racism exists no matter whether you try to use the flag as a symbol for that or not. …We cannot erase our heritage based on the actions of one deranged individual.”

Logic has no place within the realm of gov't.



Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 09 2015,12:16
Indeed.  None of this is about facts or logic or reason.  It's because the flag makes some people feel bad.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 09 2015,13:02
But... the KKK flies that flag.  Along with the Christian flag and Ol' Glory as well.  But never mind all that!
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,12:21
< Weird-ass kid >.  If he was racist, he did a fine job hiding it from most people he knew.
QUOTE
In an interview with The New York Daily News, Mr. Roof’s former stepmother, Paige Mann, said she raised him while his father traveled up to four days a week. She described her stepson as “a loner and quiet and very smart — too smart.”

“He was locked in his room looking up bad stuff on the computer,” she said. “Something on the computer drew him in — this is Internet evil.”

Looks like his stepmom was a bit dim.

Posted by Alhazad on Jul. 16 2015,15:50
Has the flag been officially banned? As far as I've read, it has only been taken down from government buildings and is no longer being sold openly at department stores, two things which were always in poor taste.

As long as you can still see it in memorials and textbooks and hang one on your house if you're an ostentatious prick, I don't think I have a problem.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,17:32
It comes down to this: freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from speech.  More specifically, the fact that we have the freedom to have any damn flag we want is good, but along with it comes the freedom for people who don't like that flag to criticize and judge.  If you take away the latter then you might as well also give up the former.

Talk of how it's been "banned" when it certainly hasn't is just as counter to the whole idea of freedom of speech as those who talk about actually banning it.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,17:34
Something I have been contemplating.... even though such a thing may not be officially "banned," what does it mean when a person may say a perfectly legal but unpopular thing, and folks band together to destroy their livelihood?  Maybe it isn't the government doing it, but it's still pretty bad when the mob does it.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,17:46
It's an undesirable consequence of our freedoms.  You can't stop it by law without weakening the fundamental structure.

But you can form your own counter mob to destroy the first mob.

EDIT: The other alternative is to consider; is freedom of speech still viable in a world where speech goes global instead of just to your immediate neighbors?  The world is a different place than it was when the Bill of Rights was written.  Personally I think the downside of the occasional mob is less damaging than scrapping the whole thing, but some other people might disagree.



Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,18:23

(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2015,20:46)
QUOTE
But you can form your own counter mob to destroy the first mob.

Well then I guess it'll be war.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,18:42
Possibly.

Fortunately wars of words generally don't get people killed.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,19:29
Until someone makes their point with a rifle and a recruiting office, or a jet plane and an office building.

Big things are made up of little things, words lead to actions, and this bullshit with destroying someones' life because they don't approve of gay marriage isn't going to lead anywhere good.  But fuckit.... the "good guys" are winning right now, so it's fine.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,19:35
Is that seriously what you took from that?  Wow.

Of course it's not good.  But besides repealing Freedom of Speech what do you recommend?  Every person has the right not to do business with a person or company they don't like; if it becomes political and a mob do you force people to go buy a cake they don't want from a baker they don't like just so that baker doesn't suffer consequences for angering the mob?  Every person has the right to state their political views on Twitter; if it becomes a mob of people talking about one target do you now make it illegal for them to say anything negative?

I'm not seeing any solutions yet.  I certainly don't have any myself, but at least I can state that the current problems are better than the only extreme alternative I've been able to formulate so far.

EDIT: Okay, here's one possible solution: use government tax money to prop up businesses attacked by social media mobs and to pay damages to people wronged by social media mobs.  But I don't think that's an improvement; it becomes too easy to game the system and I'd rather not see my money going to either nazi hate groups or militant feminists or anyone in between.



Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,19:41
Yeah, "wow."  I predict push-back from this recent spate of social change OR ELSE, and if some charismatic leader emerges, it could get bad.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,19:44
The key thing about these social justice warriors is they never take action, they just talk a lot.  You don't get many progressive shooters hitting schools.  It's just not in their nature.  Most of them would piss their pants if they were in the same room as a gun.

I don't think you need to worry about that.  At most they'll say mean things about you and arrange boycotts of your businesses.  As long as there are enough normal people still around to keep you in business you'll be fine.  And if not ... well, if they really do become the majority then so be it; by the rules of democracy that makes them in the right doesn't it?

I don't like that last bit, but there's truth in it.  One of the problems with democracy, IMO.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,19:50
QUOTE
what does it mean when a person may say a perfectly legal but unpopular thing, and folks band together to destroy their livelihood?

Depends what that constitutes.  If "destroying your livelihood" means not patronizing your biz or protesting outside it and driving away customers, then that's legal.  If they set fire to your house, not so much.  Slander and libel?  Grey area.

QUOTE
I'm not seeing any solutions yet.

Because democracy tends to be expensive and relies heavily on a citizenry that votes intelligently.  I can only presume federal, state, and local governments have let every corner of the public education system decay to crumbling stupidity expressly for the purpose of making its graduates easier to trick.



Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,19:54
Slander and libel is not grey.  That's illegal, too.  It's just that most people using those words that aren't lawyers don't really know what they mean.

Hell, some lawyers that throw those words around don't know what they really mean, either.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,19:58

(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2015,21:54)
QUOTE
Slander and libel is not grey.  That's illegal, too.  It's just that most people using those words that aren't lawyers don't really know what they mean.

Hell, some lawyers that throw those words around don't know what they really mean, either.

You can hide slander/libel behind parody laws without too much trouble, much like how Hustler beat Jerry Falwell in that one court case.  You aren't breaking the letter of the law, but you're fucking its spirit in the ass by prefacing your verbal thorns with an implied, "This is entirely fictitious and in the tradition of artistic comedy and expression."
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,20:07
QUOTE
what does it mean when a person may say a perfectly legal but unpopular thing, and folks band together to destroy their livelihood?

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards "they got what they deserved".  Not because I agree with the mob or because I disagree with any statements the business might have made; I'm talking about the general case.  Because part of running a business of any size is public relations, and if you screw up your public relations so badly that you get an angry mob after you then you are too incompetent to be running a business.

Now if we're talking about something the owner says as their own private self - with no relation to the business involved - splashing back onto the business then that's a bit different  I find that distasteful and unfortunate.  But then again, if you are going to be relying on the good will of the public to patronize your business you do need to keep that in mind at all times, I guess.  This scenario is more in that grey area than a business making an unpopular statement in it's own name.



Posted by Leisher on Jul. 16 2015,20:15
QUOTE
Every person has the right not to do business with a person or company they don't like; if it becomes political and a mob do you force people to go buy a cake they don't want from a baker they don't like just so that baker doesn't suffer consequences for angering the mob?


I agree with you completely, but Gordon also has a legit point.

The trend of public shaming folks is pushing the opposition underground. It's causing resentment. It's basically telling people their opinions and beliefs don't matter. Eventually, there will be a backlash. I hope it's a peaceful one.

And people aren't stopping at boycotts, they're pressuring others, who might not even agree with them, to boycott. Not going to a bakery you don't agree with or like is one thing. Attempting to get everyone to not go there so they're forced out of business is a whole other thing.  

I want gay people to be able to be married. I don't think Chick-Fil-A needs to be forced out of business because their company president disagrees with me.

In the short term there will be huge success, but in the long term you're creating a cancer, and the more you ignore it, the worse it will become.

Education and tolerance is a better way to spread ideas and beliefs than force and public shaming. Remember that time people publicly shamed religious folks, and they took it well and quietly stopped believing their religion to be right?

And honestly, lately I believe the "intolerant religious" folks have been the more tolerant ones, while the "tolerant" progressives have been the intolerant, hate filled monsters.

QUOTE
The key thing about these social justice warriors is they never take action, they just talk a lot.  You don't get many progressive shooters hitting schools.  It's just not in their nature.  Most of them would piss their pants if they were in the same room as a gun.


I'm not sure that's true. I get what you're saying, but that's an assumption based on stereotypes.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,20:19
I agree with you in essence on all points.  And I fully acknowledge that GORDON has a point.  The problem is I don't see a solution that doesn't involve giving up at least some of the Bill of Rights.

The real solution is to change society to make people more forgiving and understanding of each other.  But you can't do that sort of thing with force of law.



Posted by Leisher on Jul. 16 2015,20:29
QUOTE
The problem is I don't see a solution that doesn't involve giving up at least some of the Bill of Rights.


The best I can do is this:
If you were helping a little old lady across a street how would you do it? Would you grab her by the ankle and drag her across? Build a catapult and launch her? Maybe cut her up into little pieces, stuff them into a bag, and then drop it on the other side?

Or would you simply extend your arm and slowly help her across at a pace she can handle?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,20:34
QUOTE
Would you grab her by the ankle and drag her across?

Is there a car about to run her over?

QUOTE
Or would you simply extend your arm and slowly help her across at a pace she can handle?

They can walk at whatever pace they want.  If they don't get moving quickly enough, traffic will kill them.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,20:34
Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution.  How do you go about changing society so that people act more reasonably?

I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good.  Just as GORDON is worried about a future full of roaming mobs of literal PC Police, I'm worried about a future that sees a curtailing of our civil rights in the interest of countering those mobs.  I don't think it would come to that, but then I never would have predicted just how many of our civil rights would be taken away as a reaction to 9/11, either.

EDIT: Sorry, Malcolm, bad edit timing on my part.



Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,20:35

(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2015,22:34)
QUOTE
Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution.  How do you go about changing society so that people act properly?

First off, you let everyone who disagrees on "properly" all murder each other.  Then the survivors move on with life.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,20:43

(TPRJones @ Jul. 16 2015,23:34)
QUOTE
Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution.  How do you go about changing society so that people act more reasonably?

I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good.  Just as GORDON is worried about a future full of roaming mobs of literal PC Police, I'm worried about a future that sees a curtailing of our civil rights in the interest of countering those mobs.  I don't think it would come to that, but then I never would have predicted just how many of our civil rights would be taken away as a reaction to 9/11, either.

The atmosphere of debate has changed.  I've said this before.

People used to be able to have different opinions about other people and it wouldn't cost them their... whatever.  And if someone got too obnoxious about it, he got a shot to the chops and manners were learned.

Now these minor attitude adjustments get you thrown in jail.  No one ever learns nothin except "mob rules."

I don't know.  I think the Bill of Rights could remain untouched if...  people weren't snowflakes.  If people didn't need a "safe place" whenever they heard someone near them had a different opinion.  I don't know.  I'm not making my argument very goodly.

Tolerance is great.  Tolerating those who hate you and everything you stand for and honestly wish you were dead and will do their small part to make that happen is a suicide pact for a society.  maybe.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,20:51
QUOTE
People used to be able to have different opinions about other people and it wouldn't cost them their... whatever.

< Eh >.  That was one of the dirtiest elections in this country's history, if not the sole holder of that crown.  Adams and Jefferson went at each other with claws and venom.  Additionally, I dare you to get a time machine, travel back to 1840s Georgia and start preaching abolitionism.  Go try to be a British sympathizer during the War of 1812.  Try to be a German during WWI or living in one of those awesome concentration camps back in WWII for the Japanese.

QUOTE
Tolerating those who hate you and everything you stand for and honestly wish you were dead and will do their small part to make that happen is a suicide pact for a society.

They can wish and hate all they want.  Until they take actions, I don't care.

QUOTE
I think the Bill of Rights could remain untouched if...  people weren't snowflakes.

One of the primary arguments against that thing was people might get to thinking those are literally the only rights you get and anything not listed is off limits or up for grabs.  Back in the day, sexual orientation didn't even figure into the equation, but freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and the press were en vogue.  The freedom to fuck whomever you please looks like it belongs with those other four, but the ... ahem, "morals" of the day would never permit such a thing.  The freedom to walk around with whatever skin colour you were born with also seems like something that's a given, but yet again, a few people had to be reminded.

It is a document that exists partially because some people needed fundamental precepts spelled out for them on parchment.



Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,20:56
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:00

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,22:56)
QUOTE
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.

Whoa, so every person in Cuba gets to take a shot at us?



Posted by Leisher on Jul. 16 2015,21:03
QUOTE
They can walk at whatever pace they want.  If they don't get moving quickly enough, traffic will kill them.


Traffic might kill her, that's kind of my point. I know that if you treat her like shit her grand kids are going to rise up and murder you and your whole family. Treat her well and they'll be on your side. Hell, even if you can't get her out of traffic's way in time, YOU didn't kill her, thus her grand kids won't hold a grudge.

QUOTE
I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good.


Well, I don't believe I'm asking for laws. I'm saying the movement behind gay rights or any other issue should be more organized and preaching education and tolerance over blind hatred and intolerance. It's just funny that the people claiming they're tolerant are easily the most intolerant.

Those bakers weren't asking for gay people to be annihilated, but their opponents want the bakers annihilated.

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:06

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:00)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,22:56)
QUOTE
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.

Whoa, so every person in Cuba gets to take a shot at us?

Sure, at every single person who voted for and/or upheld that embargo.  I've bought Cuban cigars in Canada so I'm good.



Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 16 2015,21:13

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,22:43)
QUOTE
People used to be able to have different opinions about other people and it wouldn't cost them their... whatever.

That was before everyone had a megaphone that broadcast their different opinions to the world.  Odds were if their opinions were different they were probably mostly telling them to other people they hang out with who had similarly different opinions.  And if not then they probably did have their whatever costed by the community they were talking to if it is one they were a part of.

Without the internet the problem goes back to a strictly local one instead of a global one, but I think it was still there to some degree.  Just not as loud.

QUOTE
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.

If you'll agree to a no-permanent-damage clause I'm in.  I think we need a little more punching these days.  I've got a list.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:14
Of course no maiming.... I too think we've lost something without the ability to pop a loudmouth in the snooker now and then.  The loudmouth never learns nothin.  Everybody is worse off for it.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:14
QUOTE
Traffic might kill her, that's kind of my point. I know that if you treat her like shit her grand kids are going to rise up and murder you and your whole family. Treat her well and they'll be on your side. Hell, even if you can't get her out of traffic's way in time, YOU didn't kill her, thus her grand kids won't hold a grudge.

I think the more appropriate analogy here seems to be an old person standing in traffic holding up cars for a few miles.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:15

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,23:06)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:00)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,22:56)
QUOTE
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.

Whoa, so every person in Cuba gets to take a shot at us?

Sure, at every single person who voted for and/or upheld that embargo.  I've bought Cuban cigars in Canada so I'm good.

How about all the voters that kept the politicians in power?
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:17

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:15)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,23:06)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:00)
QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,22:56)
QUOTE
I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want.  To me that sounds fair.

Whoa, so every person in Cuba gets to take a shot at us?

Sure, at every single person who voted for and/or upheld that embargo.  I've bought Cuban cigars in Canada so I'm good.

How about all the voters that kept the politicians in power?

Isn't everyone who voted for Kennedy and the rest of them dead by now?

Sure, if you can narrow down a list, sure, each Cuban gets a free shot.  I don't have a problem with that.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:20
How about everyone who's voted for every prez since then?  They had other choices at the polls.  Then there's how many times Iran would have to hit us.


Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:21

(GORDON @ Jul. 17 2015,00:14)
QUOTE
Of course no maiming.... I too think we've lost something without the ability to pop a loudmouth in the snooker now and then.  The loudmouth never learns nothin.  Everybody is worse off for it.

Protestor: Officer!  This man just gave me a fat lip!

Officer: Sir, did you punch this guy?

Broke guy: Yeah, he organized a protest and bullied my customers into boycotting me and I just locked my doors for the last time then I punched him in the face.

Officer to protestor: Is this true?

Protestor: Yes, his views on social justice are wrong and he doesn't deserve to do business here.

Officer: Sounds like you had it coming.  Everyone go home, now, if I hear anything more about this I'm throwing you all in jail for the judge to sort out.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:21

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:20)
QUOTE
How about everyone who's voted for every prez since then?  They had other choices at the polls.  Then there's how many times Iran would have to hit us.

Make your list.  I'll make sure the Cubans get it.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:22
Bah.  Someone decks me, turnabout's fair play.  Broke dude can go protest outside the other guy's workplace.  If he's unemployed, he can go to his place of residence.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:22

(GORDON @ Jul. 16 2015,23:21)
QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:20)
QUOTE
How about everyone who's voted for every prez since then?  They had other choices at the polls.  Then there's how many times Iran would have to hit us.

Make your list.  I'll make sure the Cubans get it.

Sure.  Everyone who's voted since the '60s.  Done.  Fortunately, that's barely half the population on average.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:24

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:22)
QUOTE
Bah.  Someone decks me, turnabout's fair play.  Broke dude can go protest outside the other guy's workplace.  If he's unemployed, he can go to his place of residence.

I have a strong, strong feeling that today's Twitter/Facebook/Internet SJW tough guys, 99% of them, easily, would absolutely melt in the face of physical confrontation.  Anonymity is a hell of a security blanket.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 16 2015,21:26
Fuck.  Really in the mood to punch a loudmouth, now.  Been thinking about those Marines getting shot and I'm feeling surly.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 16 2015,21:46
All fun and games until someone brings a set of brass knuckles.  Then someone gets a knife, ad nauseum.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,07:05

(Malcolm @ Jul. 17 2015,00:14)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Traffic might kill her, that's kind of my point. I know that if you treat her like shit her grand kids are going to rise up and murder you and your whole family. Treat her well and they'll be on your side. Hell, even if you can't get her out of traffic's way in time, YOU didn't kill her, thus her grand kids won't hold a grudge.

I think the more appropriate analogy here seems to be an old person standing in traffic holding up cars for a few miles.

You might have a problem with that, I don't. If fact, it's necessary.

Liberals or Progressives or whatever the fuck they call themselves now are the gas pedal. It's their job to drive society forward.

Conservatives are the brakes. It's their job to make sure the Progressives don't drive us off a cliff.

Currently, our political climate is making it impossible for anyone to tap the brakes.

That's not good.

Change is good. Progress is good. Change and progress coming at an out of control pace where nobody is slowing down to implement the change properly or stopping to analyze impact is bad.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,07:17
One man's out of control is another's maddeningly slow.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,07:25
QUOTE
One man's out of control is another's maddeningly slow.


I couldn't care less about either man. Society/Civilization is what's important.

There must be a balance maintained. Anytime one side of ANY issue does all the winning, things go to shit.

Did you not pay attention to anything Obi Wan said?

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,07:33
QUOTE
Anytime one side of ANY issue does all the winning, things go to shit.

That kind of says any time a war manages to end with unconditional surrender, things go to shit.  Sounds like any time someone's committed to a mental institution or jailed, things get fucked up.  Sounds like the same logic my state uses to assign every party in an accident 10% of the blame at a legal minimum.  I'm not, as an individual, giving equal weight to all opinions blindly.  Example: creationism is 100% bullshit that contradicts everything science tells us.  I will not hear of it being taught as genuine theory in any public school, and that's because I don't want stupider citizens.
QUOTE
“Marge, as a trained marriage counselor, this is the first instance where I've ever told one partner that they were 100% right. It's all his fault. I'm willing to put that on a certificate you can frame.”



Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,08:24
QUOTE
That kind of says any time a war manages to end with unconditional surrender, things go to shit.


It can. Depends on your viewpoint.

QUOTE
Sounds like any time someone's committed to a mental institution or jailed, things get fucked up.


I know we're not committing folks anymore that would have been committed in the past and people have paid a price for it.

But you're taking this WAY off point. It's like trying to win a debate based on your opponent's punctuation.

I stand by "change is good, but not too much too fast".

[/QUOTE]Example: creationism is 100% bullshit that contradicts everything science tells us.  I will not hear of it being taught as genuine theory in any public school, and that's because I don't want stupider citizens.[QUOTE]

Just to be contradictory, I'll say that while there is proof of evolution, we have no proof that we weren't part of a plan.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,08:28
QUOTE
we have no proof that we weren't part of a plan.

We have no proof we aren't all computer simulations, either.  I'm not giving every conjecture equal weight.  Evolution has a body of scientific evidence behind it.  If someone detects a higher power and finds out we're his lab experiment, that's evidence.  Even if there is a "plan," fuck that thing.  No one explained it to me or asked if I wanted in.  Free will is the ability to say, "Fuck that plan."



Posted by GORDON on Jul. 17 2015,08:34
Creationism/religion may not be "disproven," but it isn't science because by definition science has to be falsifiable.  There's got to be a way to say, "See, this proves that a divine creator couldn't have had a hand in it."  The entire religious thing is that you have to live without proof, because it's all about the faith... which is a rather convenient fallback for the religious.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 17 2015,10:32
QUOTE
We have no proof we aren't all computer simulations, either.  I'm not giving every conjecture equal weight.


Nobody said you had to give them all equal weight, but can you summarily dismiss everything you don't believe as not being a genuine theory?

I was simply baiting and even said so, but I did think a person must allow a bit of leeway that they could be wrong about something.

QUOTE
Free will is the ability to say, "Fuck that plan."


Now we need Cake here to explain to you that free will doesn't exist. (A debate he and I had a long time ago.)

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 17 2015,16:17
Technically true, free will doesn't exist.  But the illusion of free will does, and it's an important illusion.  Strong enough to stand in for actual free will.

EDIT: Not to say that your actions are determined.  Quantum effects do throw a bit of randomness into the universe that gets caught up in the free will debate and makes a difference.  So, no true free will but also no absolute determinism.



Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,19:45
QUOTE
But the illusion of free will does, and it's an important illusion.  Strong enough to stand in for actual free will.

1) Kind of
2) It's a good enough stand in such that you can't tell the difference, may as well be the original

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 20 2015,19:42
QUOTE
It would be an improvement if the left could stick to either of its double standards. Personally, I think fellow Americans - even ones who wear Lynyrd Skynyrd shirts - deserve some of the nuance and understanding so many reserve for Islam extremism. But if you're going to take your zero tolerance for symbols of 19th century slavery so seriously, maybe you should show the same myopic zealotry with regard to the forces who are enslaving people right now.

-- Jonah Goldberg

Posted by Vince on Jul. 21 2015,06:17
I think most people in the south that display the rebel battle flag are doing so, not as a matter of their views on race, but to indicate they aren't a Yankee New York asshole.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 21 2015,12:36
< More people fail history >.  Fortunately, at least one guy didn't.
QUOTE
On Sunday, hundreds of Forrest supporters rallied to show support for the statue.

WNEM.com reported that Ron Sydor, an African-American historian, was the keynote speaker at the event. Sydor reportedly said Forrest changed his ways years after he led the Ku Klux Klan.

"There's a lot of history that has been lost, and it's important that a true history is taught," he said.

Megan Barry, a councilwoman and mayoral candidate in Nashville, has been pushing the effort to block the statue.

Megan Barry is also a total tool who's whoring herself out for votes.

Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard