Agree, or disagree ? by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Still waiting for a response to my posts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:39 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

From now on, I will expect you to back up your 'facts' with links to credible sources. Every one of them. Like a real skeptic. Otherwise, you will be ignored.

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is

whore

Quote:
As evidence of "rape mentality"...
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The term applies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I have things to do today, so I'll wait for you, rappy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, good points about Israel; "that, too".

As to women in Afghanistan, don't make me cry. I'm all too well aware of that aspect of the Russian occupation, as are the others I'm in contact with who lived there at that time and after. There's a website for people who went to the International School in Kabul; there are even a few who were there before we were, and we've discussed that aspect.

The Russian occupation was horrible, but you see, at the time, they kinda knew it was coming, it was just "when". I've mentioned the game Doud and the Shah were trying to keep going then, playing the US off against Russia, and part of the reason they kept at it was to try and stave off what they knew was the coming invasion.

Unless/until America stops sticking it's nose in--sometimes with all good intentions, sometimes not--the scenarios you described will continue happening again and again, just as they always have. Hard as it is, horrible as it is, I wish sometimes we would just let history unfold; the Russians wouldn't have been able to stay in Afghanistan, nobody ever has, and superior technology wouldn't have "won" in the end, in my opinion.

ETA: I wouldn't hold my breath, where Rap's concerned. But then, I know you're not. Have a good day doing other stuff. :o)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:18 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: Otherwise, you will be ignored.

OK, "Niki".

ROFLMAO !

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:22 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Evidence based reasoning...............isn't that against your religion....
;-)

SGG

Not having a religion, it can't be against it.

But actually, evidence based reasoning IS what I strive for, always.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:23 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, I have things to do today, so I'll wait for you, rappy.

Waiting for what ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:40 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Are we done here?

I know I am.

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is

whore

Quote:
As evidence of "rape mentality"...
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The term applies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, it's just Rap in goad mode at this point, not just point of diminishing return, but point of no hope of return to any kind of rational disbussion. He's managed to jack the thread way away from whatever his original point was, not to mention showing clearly in other threads that he has no problem doing precisely what the lecturer he put up was lecturing AGAINST, so why bother?

Not to mention now having sunk into (I'm guessing?) saying I'm Kiki's sock puppet...or she's mine? I would be offended, given I've never had a sock puppet in my life and view them as the lowest form of cowardice, but I recognize the source as the meaningless desperation it obviously is. We all have better things to do, and there are far more valid threads to discuss.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:04 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So SignyM

Thinking about all that makes my head hurt.

As I grind my way through thinking about history, I've puzzled my way to a few tentative observations:

Remember when the US dollar was considered 'the' international hard currency? After WWII many large economies were in a shambles. Regardless of whether or not a country had a 'gold standard', people behaved as if the real value of the currency lay in the strength of the economy behind it.

What's the value of having the strongest currency in the world? Well, you can buy anything on the international market.

So for decades the US went plucking the fairest flowers around the globe in exchange for its dollars: the various S.Am. governments (Chile for copper for example), Asian governments (The Philippines for its naval base, Korea as a 'bulwark against Communism for example) among others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_Authoritarian_re
gimes

But then the global economy began to revive and the US was no longer the undisputed premier currency - and purchaser - on the planet. For the US, it ceased to be a buyer's market.

What to do. As you outlined, by making the US dollar THE currency to purchase petroleum (specifically sweet light crude) through agreements with oil-producing nations, the US hoped to boost the value of the dollar and maintain its purchasing power around the globe.

And that's unraveling too.

That's as far as I got.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:08 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I'm Kiki's sock puppet...or she's mine ..."

Maybe we can alternate weeks. Or, since you post more than I do in general, maybe there might be a different arrangement? What do you think?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM: Well, I have things to do today, so I'll wait for you, rappy.

Waiting for what ?-rappy

Some of that "evidence based reasoning" that you always strive for. What do you think of the idea that the Saudi and Qataris are arming al Qaida across the ME? Is the evidence compelling? Or do you find a flaw? If the evidence is compelling, why do you suppose we allow it, seeing as both nations are tied to the USA dollar and (presumably) represent our collective interests in the ME? What are our real geopolitical interests? Is it really "fighting terrorism across the globe", or is it more about denying oil to China, or something else?

Not looking for a thesis, just your thoughts on the topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, you started this thread with the idea that people cannot be ridiculed into being a skeptic. I agree.

OTOH, you claimed you already were one... except that you can't seem to get rid of old paradigms.

So I bring some fresh data to the table ... information which I'm sure is new to everyone here. Some musings on my part as to what might be behind it. And you.... apparently have no thoughts at all on the topic. Maybe it's because the information crosses too many deeply ingrained ideas: that our government is "fighting terrorism across the globe", that anyone who supports terrorism is evil, that we want stable secular democracies in the ME, that terrorists are just religiously-deranged individuals. And yet, here we are... seemingly aware that our middle east allies are shipping arms to al Qaida, and we're OK with it.

It's a mental fustercluck, isn't it? And nobody on the right has told anyone what to think about it. Now's your chance to be a real skeptic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:03 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nah, Kiki, let 'em play their games; that's all it is to them anyway: games. The fact that they accuse others of having sock puppets is a reflection of them, nobody else. Sock puppets are a sign of low self-esteem and desperation, they're welcome to 'em. I find this entire thread an amazing work of irony, myself.

Rap: "I CAN say ill try to do better, from here on out."

Within a couple of DAYS of writing that:

Quote:
"Get this through your gorram thick skull !!!"

"because of your myrmidon mindset, your blind and childish clinging to your own personal point of view, nothing that you see which goes counter to what you WISH were true gets any credence."

"you're delusional. No other way to put it."

"But do continue to work yourself up into a twisted heap over your deranged imaginations. Motherfucker."

"Now you're wading into the crazy pool. Might want to head back to the steps."

"I see your head remains firmly and deeply implanted in the ground."[

Why not take what the guy YOU put up said, and "don't be a dick"...

As to "I can't help but note how so many have decided to direct their negative comments towards me, instead of discussing the video posted. Ironic, a bit ? In that some here are guilty of doing exactly what's being discussed in the video, and apparently aren't even aware."

A. People here are perfectly well aware of what they write; that they don't feel like discussing it in no way indicates their unawareness. If that remark was directed toward me in any way, Rap need to show anywhere I have called him names anything like what he has been calling me, every day since he put up this thread.

B. Yes, it is as ironic as hell; ironic that RAP put it up, given he is the most voluminous and consistent poster doing precisely what he complained about in this very thread: "belittling of those who hold opposing views, and how it's pointless to bludgeon those from the other side w/ insults and ridicule."

C. "I know many are saying that I'm describing myself, and myself alone". NOBODY here has ever claimed Rap's alone in posting personal nastiness. I would bet there's not a single person who read this who even thought that, much less said it. He is, however, the one person here who calls almost everyone they disagree with "stupid" and/or "crazy" in one term or another most consistently.

The basic question is why he bothered to put up this thread in the first place and why he bothered to pretend by saying he "COULD" try to do better, when he obviously had no intention whatsoever of doing so.

p.s., Someone might mention to him that it's "hook, line and sinker", just for future reference. They are three separate things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 19, 2013 6:48 AM

I have no idea where or how I miss statements like you post AURaptor saying.

You really should keep posting them because clearly I must be avoiding conversations where this happens and it probably skews my data on these matters.

Perhaps if I actually start to see all insults with the regularity that you say they occur I might start to understand the lay of the land better. Though I'm also interested in the specific threads where this happens - still think would be useful to understand what thread topics tend to set people off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 19, 2013 9:28 AM

America loves a winner!

Byte - notoriously missing from those " quotes " some folks are posting is something called CONTEXT.

Niki - My thread, I can't jack it. It was others who decided to do that, all I did was reply. As for other threads, you clearly have missed the point of THIS one. As I said I'd TRY, it didn't mean I was gonna blow sunshine and rainbows up anyone's backside, no matter what. It's a 2 way street, ma'am. And for those who wish to carry on and sling mud, I'll sling back.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 19, 2013 3:47 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

If it helped, I'm glad, Byte. I think you do have an incomplete picture, maybe that's part of why. I avoid a lot of threads, tho' I pop into them and read, I just don't respond. Over time, the pattern has been quite clear to me, at least. There is unquestionably nastiness on both sides; the difference I've seen is that Rap dives into calling people "stupid" and "crazy" (in variations as above) with no provocation. One of those responses was to Frem, who is on a tear and I condemned his uncensored vitriol at the time, and condemn it now. But the others, mostly to me, were responses to nothing written which called him any names. No "mud" had been "slung". It is his M.O., it is consistent, especially where I am concerned. Coming in the nine days immediately following Rap saying he could "try better", it clearly shows that he's either unable to do so or never intended to do so.

"Get this through your gorram thick skull !!!" and "because of your myrmidon mindset, your blind and childish clinging to your own personal point of view, nothing that you see which goes counter to what you WISH were true gets any credence" are in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55983

Within that same post, he wrote "I said I'd TRY. And unlike you, at least I'm making an honest effort. The delusion you live in by saying you are and have been more civil is comical." I would ask that you read my posts in that thread and see where I have been uncivil. In fact, in the post to which the above sentence responded, I wrote "In all fairness, there is something to Rap's argument..."

" But do continue to work yourself up into a twisted heap over your deranged imaginations. Motherfucker" was a response to Frem on 8/18 in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=56002, and there was unquestionably provocation.

" Now you're wading into the crazy pool. Might want to head back to the steps" was on 8/17 in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=55977&mid=
946264#946264. It is in response (via a direct quote) to Sig's: " Except cites which back up your claims. Yanno- for example, a study which compares the frequency and extremity of the images of Bush to the images of Obama, so that people can discuss with intelligence whether one portrayal is worse than another." Where is the "context"--I assume he's inferring provocation?--there?

"Again, you're flat out delusional" was also in response to Frem, on 8/18 in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=55864&mid=
946308#946308. Again, he was s certainly provoked. He went on:

"Such are the rantings of those w/ small minds, unable to cope w/ reality. Placing delusions of grandeur or fabricating all manner of fairy tales to tell themselves

you're just another example of the twisted, petty and deranged mind of a Leftist, who feels the need to stalk those with whom they disagree."

" I see your head remains firmly and deeply implanted in the ground" was to me, on 8/17 in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=55941&p=2. I leave you to read my post, and see if there's "context" there which validates his statement. He continued in that post to, I THINK (tho' it's only a guess) claim that the KKK and WBC are only "fringe" and "dying embers from days gone bye", as opposed to the " " moderate " Muslim immigration problem" (I also assume the quotes around "moderate" denote sarcasm, as in they're only pretending to be moderate) which he claims is " motivated, organized and growing". I think we can all understand the point he is making: KKK and WBC are harmless, "moderate" Muslims are immigrating to come git us all.

I've been, for quite some time now, making my points with facts, cites included, and debate. I have refrained from any truly nasty personal attacks, tho' I freely admit some snarking and mocking. If you think anything I write rises to the level of the above obvious, blatant and unquestionably personal verbiage, I'm open to discussion.

I am only responsible for my own words and actions. We all are. I'm calling Rap out because he is the one who posted the "Don't Be A Dick" thread, and because he said he COULD try better, and later claimed he was making an "honest attempt". I see no such evidence. These are just the PERSONAL remarks I noticed; his generalized rantings have continued as nasty as ever. These are also just the examples I happened to see in the nine days after he posted the thread and claimed he could try to do better.

He's right, it is a two-way street. But " As I said I'd TRY, it didn't mean I was gonna blow sunshine and rainbows up anyone's backside, no matter what" is bullshit; his comments, except to Frem, responded to nothing which "context" would justify. I rest my case

To avoid what might be coming: In my opinion Frem is behaving in a totally unconscionable manner; the fact that we expect no better from him and he doesn't complain about others makes that irrelevant to this discussion, but doesn't change that fact. I've ceased reading any of his posts, he has sunk to the level of Six, zit and Wulf as far as I'm concerned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 19, 2013 8:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have absolutely no interest in going over rappy's last 30 posts to dredge up the abuse, evasion, and name-calling that he routinely substitutes for "facts" and "intelligent conversation", so I'll just second NIKI's post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 19, 2013 9:24 PM

Because holy shit Byte if you haven't caught on to Rappy's MO by now, what web site have you been on? The pattern of his trollishness is not hard to spot. Go on, go look. You'll find it.

I'm quite surprised that any of this comes as a surprise to you.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:26 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I have absolutely no interest in going over rappy's last 30 posts to dredge up the abuse, evasion, and name-calling that he routinely substitutes for "facts" and "intelligent conversation", so I'll just second NIKI's post.

What about doing the same for YOUR posts, hmmm ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Because holy shit Byte if you haven't caught on to Rappy's MO by now, what web site have you been on? The pattern of his trollishness is not hard to spot. Go on, go look. You'll find it.

I'm quite surprised that any of this comes as a surprise to you.

My only M.O. is to speak truth to lunacy.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:50 AM

...Bleh. I can actually see what was bugging AURaptor in those threads and now I'm back to square one.

And I also remember why I don't go into those threads. Nevermind.

I am however curious about one more thing.

If people don't respect someone when they go on long rants and temper tantrums - even though those rants or temper tantrums might be the exception, and not the rule - and as such they are then lumped in with a number of people who don't even share their political views and they'd be offended to be grouped with...

Then I wonder how in hell anyone respects anyone else around here. None of us are exactly saints in the "losing our cool" department.

Frem's personal attacks on you stem from your long-standing disagreements over the second amendment. That disagreement has festered into what you see now, just as bad behaviour from anyone else on the board can be directly traced to an argument that turned ugly and friendships that got broken. It is no one's fault, and yet I am continually frustrated at how difficult these matters seem to be to fix when the problem and the solution seem to be obvious.

I also find this to be a very revealing look at how I'm probably thought of as well. But then I've never had any doubts on that count.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm seeing what is in my opinion your bias once again. The difference is that I TRY to take every post individually as best I can, I TRY to make my points without resorting to personal attacks, and I sink to the level the people I mentioned do. I will agree with Rap or acknowledge a good point he makes exactly one post after disagreeing with him, as I have several times just recently.

Frem decided he hates me, and his verbiage toward me couldn't be much more vicious if he tried. I actually haven't read much of it; I caught a couple of sentences in one post and stopped reading, then saw he was on the same tear elsewhere while I was searching for the "context" Rap complained about. I've said NOTHING to Frem, have not attacked or denegrated him in any way, and went way out of my way to try and resolve our differences privately at the time. Instead he comes back spewing pure, unadulterated hatred.

What I see from you is that people who go very far over the bounds of decency get a pass for one reason or another; I stay fairly well within the bounds of decency and get raked over the coals. Bullshit. I don't know why you harbor this bias, mostly I try to ignore it. But the fact is you make excuses left and right for the behavior of some, while castigating the behavior of others, in my opinion, unfairly.

I said Frem had sunk to the level of others, and that's what I saw from what I read of his recent posts. He doesn't have to stay at that level, he's responsible for his own actions, but currently yes, he's right down in the gutter with them. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. It has nothing to do with his misperception of and misrepresentation of my beliefs on gun rights to ME, but apparently everything in the world to HIM; it appears to have become a total filter for him where I'm concerned, so why on earth would I have any reason to pay attention to what he writes?

We don't even HAVE a "long-standing disagreements over the second amendment". Frem got something into his head and it became EVERYTHING to him, and now I am the enemy, everything evil, pure and simple. He hasn't been coming from a place of honesty ever since he made that determination, and I have no expectations he ever will. I have no control over that, I made an honest effort to work it out; now all I can do is ignore it. Since you feel quite comfortable calling people on their behavior, I don't know why it bothers you that anyone else does. At least I don't make excuses for people's behavior because they're "bugged" or don't do it all the time; I'm quite clear that people act like assholes on both sides.

It's amazing that you're happy as a claim to give Frem a total pass because you view his rant as an "exception", and apparently now feel Rap is perfectly justified in the things he writes because he was "bugged". That totally ignores the point of this thread. I'm not going to get into this further with you, it was foolish of me to try in the first place, obviously.

Respectfully, I would caution you against jumping to any conclusions about how people view you; it's been shown many times that your assumptions about how people view you and/or feel toward you have been incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You're wrong.
I don't hate you personally, never did, still don't, in fact I think you are overall a decent sort of folk.
But I did call out what I firmly believe to be really blatant deception and hypocrisy on your part, and I am admantly, virulently opposed to the stomping on of other peoples rights regardless of the bullshit excuses and rationalizations for it - that this has made us "enemies" in practice is unfortunate, but not something worth compromising my principles over.

Being a vicious bastard though, hell I always and have ever been, you just never much had a problem with it when that was on your "side" of an issue.
Ain't askin for no kinda free pass on that and never did.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:03 AM

Quote:
The difference is that I TRY to take every post individually as best I can, I TRY to make my points without resorting to personal attacks, and I sink to the level the people I mentioned do.

It is possible that other people try as well, even perhaps AURaptor, but they are maybe more easily provoked?

Look, I give you that you take a ration of shit. Sometimes from me too. I respect that, and you have every right to defend yourself.

The thing is, I look at threads like the ones posted and I think maybe AURaptor is defending himself against something you don't even realize you're doing, or aren't doing, but he thinks you are. And I think sometimes AURaptor posts threads that get reactions in much the same way. I think most of the time for both sides it's unintentional. But I think both sides think the other side does it intentionally.

As for the you and Frem thing, that's what I'm trying to tell you. His current beef with you is about the second amendment. Maybe you already know that? I don't know. But that's what it is.

Really I've noticed that certain issues cause the whole board to line up opposite each other. And it's because the whole system and media frames every issue like it's life or death.

Like with guns. See, I get along with everyone on guns because I can't really make a decision here. I don't know squat about guns, and while I'm as affected by shooting tragedies as anyone else, that doesn't really make me feel all that inclined to learn more about them or say definitively they're all good or all bad.

I'm neither worried about guns, nor scared about guns getting taken away. Because have you SEEN how many guns are out there? They couldn't all be taken away no matter what. Someone will break the law, if laws are passed, and people will look the other way when they do. And a gun is just a gun. A hunk of metal technology that can hurl a metal pellet at about 800 m/s. Like an axe or a sword is just a hunk of metal until a madman starts swinging them around. And a club is a chunk of wood. I've been taught that you don't attack the weapon, the weapon isn't the problem. The problem is the human and the human has to be addressed.

Eh, rambling. Point is. On this issue, and many others, each side around here sees the other side as a THREAT. Like an actual life and death threat poised to take away rights, life, and liberty. And both sides have a point, IF you only look at the big picture. But on a micro level here on the board, there is no way any single one of us can pull off passing these laws all by ourselves. None of us are threats to anyone else here.

So yeah, Frem is acting out against you, and it may not be warranted. He still likes you, but his life experiences and filters demand that he make this stand.

And you've moved on from that argument, but at the time, Sandyhook had just happened, and it seemed like there needed to be something done to prevent more shootings. That was life and death too, at least then it was.

I'm saying that it's all perceptions around here, you know? All anyone around here really wants is to have their viewpoint acknowledged now and then. Maybe not necessarily "you're one hundred percent right" but "okay, maybe the facts got smudged here, but I can see you have a valid reason you're saying that." We don't have to treat everything like this is life or death and if the other side wins this we'll go over a cliff.

All Frem wants is some acknowledgment that with the life he lives he has some valid concerns about keeping his guns. I know you don't see your position as a slippery slope or as out to get the guns, but they need the reassurance.

Even AURaptor just wants acknowledgment.

And that's all you want and everyone else too. You just want someone to say, now and then, "yes, you have a point."

I think we lose sight of that sometimes and get caught up in these arguments. But they're not arguments anyone here can win. Unfortunately it still sets people off, provocation is seen maybe even where it wasn't intended.

If I get after you, it is only because I am trying to point this out and because you are reasonable.

*Sigh* I shouldn't get after you though, you're right on that. I really should try to stop doing that. I know full well it probably annoys you, and I know if someone did it to me I'd get annoyed too. I keep doing it because I keep thinking that it's something I NEED to do or something, but it's actually probably unnecessary.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:27 AM

Here I go jumping into conflicts that don't involve me, which usually doesn't end well...

Byte, you do have a bias about Rap, or maybe it's more about your desire to never be on any side. Seems to me that you are sometimes driven to defend people because it is not popular to do so, as if you feel a need to buck the crowd.

I appreciate that you are ready and willing to jump to defense, but I think you've gone astray in this case. Sometimes not everyone is right. Sometimes a person is flat out wrong. Rappy is just flat out wrong. Intentional or not, he is incapable of any kind of factual reasonable debate, and his contributions to RWED over the years have been devious, [Edited to correct: LOL!] DISingenuous, and downright insulting enough that he's dug himself a big big hole. No matter how he tries to blame others, he's put himself there. He'll stay in it until he finds a way to dig himself out.

In the other matter, I think Frem was off is his rant above, and def wrong to assign opinions to Niki just because she doesn't agree with him. Frem man, sometimes you sound like W! "If you're not with me, you're with the terrorists!" Just because Niki doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean she's a supporter of oppressive central powers. You do tend to paint with a broad brush about that. It disrespectful to her and frankly, says more about you. Your feelings are so strong that you can't hear what she's saying.

I will agree however, that you don't hate her. Niki, I don't at all put Frem in the same class as 6 and the others. Frem went overboard here but he can get back in the boat if you reason with him.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:11 AM

I confess to certain inclinations, which may or may not be calibrated correctly, towards perceived under-dogs that some board members kind of trigger.

I'm pretty sure my occasional non-terribleness is the only thing that keeps me from being completely irredeemable, as though humanity was a cliff edge and sparing acts of reverse-jerkery keep me clinging to the rock face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I confess to certain inclinations, which may or may not be calibrated correctly, towards perceived under-dogs that some board members kind of trigger.

I'm pretty sure my occasional non-terribleness is the only thing that keeps me from being completely irredeemable, as though humanity was a cliff edge and sparing acts of reverse-jerkery keep me clinging to the rock face.

You know, I hope there's always someone in the room to defend the one everyone gangs up on. I happen to think Rap has earned it in this case, but it's always good to be challenged and make sure.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:50 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't want to keep going on this, I've had too much experience with the fruitlessness of it. But I have to say you're wrong, Byte inasmuch as "All Frem wants is some acknowledgment that with the life he lives he has some valid concerns about keeping his guns." I have said clearly that I don't want anyone's guns taken away, for which he called me a liar. He went further, and ascribed things to me which purely and simply were not true, as I showed very carefully with quotes, dates, etc. He continues to accuse me of "really blatant deception and hypocrisy" and "bullshit excuses and rationalizations" right here, as you can see. One of the hypocrisies he's claiming is that I never had a problem with him because he was on my "side" (of what, I'm not quite sure). Also untrue; I disagreed with Frem at times and agreed with him at others. But I RESPECTED him, which respect he no longer affords me. His entire mentality toward me has obviously been turned around by this one issue, and it's all in HIS imagination, which is why I have lost respect for him. He's so blinded by this one issue that he can no longer see reality. He's got some idea in his head, and it's now the filter through which he sees me, despite the fact that I have never been deceptive--I PROVED that, in black and white--nor hypocritical, nor made excuses or rationalizations. This whole thing stemmed from him calling us all, and thereby me, liars, and that was the crux of the issue for me. Honesty is important to me.

So I say again; your perception is faulty, in my opinion. Frem isn't "currently" provoked where I'm concerned; his entire view of me changed and he acts out of that, and has no compunction about what he writes regarding me.

As to provocation, I reject what seems to be your concept: that somehow it's excusable to be an asshole to people because you're more easily provoked than they are. That's bullshit, in my opinion. We're all responsible for our own words and actions.

Beyond that, Mal4 pretty much covered it. All I will say is that, with regard to "Frem went overboard here but he can get back in the boat if you reason with him", that's untrue. I tried. A lot. I don't give up on misunderstandings easily, you've seen it often enough here, and I don't give up on people who I liked/respected easily. I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote "He doesn't have to stay at that level, he's responsible for his own actions, but currently yes, he's right down in the gutter with them." The issue came up with regard to how people write here, per this thread, and I pointed out that his current posts are, in my opinion, unconscionable. As with anyone, if he makes a point with which I agree and I feel like doing so, I will. Currently I see no need to read the kind of crap he's spewing. But make no mistake, I have no expectations of him having any desire to be reasonable, to clear up his misconceptions of me, or to lower his tone.

Enough already, I need to make an effort to stop responding to this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:16 PM

I do believe I mentioned that you weren't trying to take away all the guns? And that the behaviour might be unwarranted? But that doesn't mean that this argument isn't fundamentally based on 1) a misunderstanding, and 2) inability to see things from the opposite perspective.

Frem attributed to you an erroneous slippery slope, yes. But on issues you care about, like abortions or not restricting voting, are you not also concerned that one step might lead to a cascade? You can't see why Frem is upset and suddenly mistrusts you, even if you might not deserve that?

It's unfortunate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have absolutely no interest in going over rappy's last 30 posts to dredge up the abuse, evasion, and name-calling that he routinely substitutes for "facts" and "intelligent conversation", so I'll just second NIKI's post. -signy

What about doing the same for YOUR posts, hmmm ?- rappy

You sure you want to go down this road?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Frem attributed to you an erroneous slippery slope, yes. But on issues you care about, like abortions or not restricting voting, are you not also concerned that one step might lead to a cascade? You can't see why Frem is upset and suddenly mistrusts you, even if you might not deserve that?

Byte, I know you're trying to be fair, but you're not. Because I could pull a Kwicko, substitute "Niki" for "Frem", and be equally valid (and - more importantly- true). So why are you trying so hard to explain Frem to Niki, and not the other way around? (I know the answer, I'm just wondering if you do.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Bzzzt, wrong answer.

The fundamental part of this isn't even the right in question, it is rights, plural, wholesale.

See, the moment someone decides that they'll only defend a right if they approve of it, or how it is used, or who uses it, they're no longer defending rights, just participating in a turf and dominance game, AND they blow that all important credibility factor.

Who is to say some time in the future they'd not decide that hey, maybe certain people shouldn't vote, or perhaps THESE people don't deserve free speech, or THOSE people don't need fourth amendment protections ?

Nothing, cause they've already proven that they fail to understand the concept of universal rights, or simply do not care for it, or about it.
Not exactly the best guardians of human freedoms and rights, no ?

Then there is the hypocrisy and deception of "We're not banning/taking away anything!".
You know, that's *exactly* what the rightwingnuts said when they threw "reasonable restrictions" (Gee, that term sounds... FAMILIAR...) at voting rights in a blatant effort to deny them to certain people - or the right to terminate a pregnancy as they hemmed it in with so many "reasonable restrictions" as to make it functionally impossible/illegal without ACTUALLY doing so.

Seriously, stop, it's embarassing to watch folks PRETEND they're not playing the exact same game when they obviously are, and for that matter farming out the violence by pawning it off on the Government to inflict on your behalf does not mean your own hands are clean or that you are not morally culpable, nor has the little propaganda barrage ever since gone unnoticed around here, but I have been polite and just let most of it go cause I fail to see the point of discussing the issue for the most part cause when I point out really blatant, very intentional deception and hypocrisy the only result is a hissyfit followed by a personal attack, and demanding I stand down by holding "friendship" hostage was a final goddamn straw.

And since y'all brought it up, despite me leaving it alone, just remember y'all poked the hornets nest here, right ?

Tell me again about how nobody wishes to confiscate ?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55190

Quote:
“We need[ed] a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,”

This on an open mic they thought was off, IMMEDIATELY after shovelling that bullshit load, and I am supposed to assign credibility to people like this ?
I am supposed to believe confiscation is not their intention ?
Are you fuckin kiddin me ?

Or hows about as you might recall my point about that poor bastard in New York being a test case to see how much they could get AWAY with ?
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/14/what-is-mental-illness-where-is-t
he-bright-line-drawn/

Well folks in both New York and California have been already been reporting serious problems with this, not least of which is how the State somehow has access to medical information it has no legal right to, which should come as no surprise THESE days, and folk have already gotten hand-em-over-or-else letters for naught more than having once been prescribed an antidepressant.
http://wibx950.com/lawsuit-new-york-illegally-accessing-health-records
-to-revoke-pistol-permits-under-ny-safe-act/

Tresmond and other legal firms have been up to the neck with cases like this as of late, so it appears - Max himself discusses it here, with more detail and comfirmation of cases piling up.
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/51155-nys-police-depart
ments-revoking-pistol-permits-because-anti-anxiety-meds.html

Quote:
Sadly, what Chris reported is true.

The cases are coming in.

The police departments also want to confiscate the magazines, claiming "They have no need for a magazine anymore".

I'll fill everyone in on the details later this afternoon. If you have an urgent problem, please email info@tresmondlaw.com

Yanno, just once, just bloody once in a while, it'd be nice for folks to consider my track record of prediction accuracy before dismissing me outright cause they don't wanna hear it.

That said, one final thing I also didn't bother with but might as well, is that YES, the Kellerman study is complete bullshit any way you slice it, and is picked apart rather handily by folk who actually know what they're doing with real science - when I called bullshit on that laughable 2.7 "statistic" I meant it.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

But that's really just throwing darts at folk by this point, cause ain't neither "side" all that interested in 'debate' - hell, it was seeing that level of deception and hypocrisy amongst the folks he was nominally allied to which caused AnthonyT to start having a breakdown and decide to bail this joint, and for my part I don't feel there's much benefit to 'debating' this one anyways, as it would be no more effective than pointing out what a damn psycho Ayn Rand was to a diehard Objectivist.

Anyways, it ain't about ONE human or civil right, never was...
Tis whether or not one can be trusted to stand up for them even when it ain't so convenient or easy, I mean, come on, you think I *like* that fucker Phelps ?!
It's about willing to stand up when even the use or user of those rights makes you cringe and grit your teeth, and if you cannot be counted ON to do that, then you can't be counted IN.

Simple.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

I happen to think Rap has earned it in this case, but it's always good to be challenged and make sure.

Yes. Daring to speak out against " the collective ", shall not be tolerated.

Examples must be made, and such.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Frem attributed to you an erroneous slippery slope, yes. But on issues you care about, like abortions or not restricting voting, are you not also concerned that one step might lead to a cascade? You can't see why Frem is upset and suddenly mistrusts you, even if you might not deserve that?
Byte, I know you're trying to be fair, but you're not. Because I could pull a Kwicko, substitute "Niki" for "Frem", and be equally valid (and - more importantly- true). So why are you trying so hard to explain Frem to Niki, and not the other way around? (I know the answer, I'm just wondering if you do.)

Niki has not been making a slippery slope argument about taking away guns. So you probably actually couldn't replace Niki with Frem and have the meaning of the paragraph remain accurate and intact.

Niki hasn't done anything besides state some opinions without maybe realizing the landscape and the audience and how those comments would be taken.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:09 AM

Quote:
Bzzzt, wrong answer.

The fundamental part of this isn't even the right in question, it is rights, plural, wholesale.

See, the moment someone decides that they'll only defend a right if they approve of it, or how it is used, or who uses it, they're no longer defending rights, just participating in a turf and dominance game, AND they blow that all important credibility factor.

Well... She's still technically defending abortion rights and voting rights. That doesn't really stop just because she's not so sympathetic towards some other issues.

I don't really like that aspect of this argument either, and I'm paranoid as hell in regards to motivations and so on, but I do try to give credit where it is due.

It does not seem implausible to me that someone might fall various places on the question of various different rights, and yet still not be out against all rights and want to assume total control over everyone just because on one issue they happen to fall to a side that supports more control.

Other people with far more malicious motivations will use that tacit support for some nasty business of course, but I can't expect everyone to always construct their political beliefs in such a way as to prohibit other people using them as fodder for dangerous agendas. And I also can't hold those dangerous agendas against people who had no intention of things ever going that far.

Besides, like I said, if that side does win out you can always cheat. In fact cheating gives you a tactical advantage because people expect you to field according to the rules they've established.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:30 AM

Does anyone remember the kerfuffle once about when a protest with bikes deliberately clogged up some city traffic?

And there were questions about the rights of speech versus the rights of people not to be held hostage?

This is kind of like that. Some issues are MURKY. Sometimes people think they have life or death stakes in some issues. Abortion is life or death for both sides. Guns are life or death for both sides.

And when issues are murky, things get obfuscated until one side sees the other side as evil terrible monsters out to kill the good guy side or force them into slavery or both in no particular order.

The only thing anyone on this board is asking for is just a consideration for a differing point of view, and not to have the "you're a monster" or "you're an idiot" or "you're a liar" card thrown immediately in their face.

Well, 'cept me. I'd actually likely to be called a monster a lot more than I usually am. :/ But even I don't like to be called an idiot or a liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM

Quote:
See, the moment someone decides that they'll only defend a right if they approve of it, or how it is used, or who uses it, they're no longer defending rights, just participating in a turf and dominance game, AND they blow that all important credibility factor.

Who is to say some time in the future they'd not decide that hey, maybe certain people shouldn't vote, or perhaps THESE people don't deserve free speech, or THOSE people don't need fourth amendment protections ?

Nothing, cause they've already proven that they fail to understand the concept of universal rights, or simply do not care for it, or about it.
Not exactly the best guardians of human freedoms and rights, no ?

Personally, I think you're turning "rights" into a religion. There is no such thing as a "right". You can look up and down in nature, and not find a single such thing. To show you how artificial the construct is, I heard that even among western democracies, "universal" rights vary from less than 10 to more than 14.

Hello? What I get from that is that "rights" are pretty damn artificial. It is simply what each society promises in order to engage the cooperation of most of its members.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
yes. Daring to speak out against " the collective ", shall not be tolerated.

Yes, and we can tell how important individuality is to you simply by seeing how important original thought is in your mental life. (she said drily)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:25 PM

FREM

Quote:
See, the moment someone decides that they'll only defend a right if they approve of it, or how it is used, or who uses it, they're no longer defending rights, just participating in a turf and dominance game, AND they blow that all important credibility factor.

Booooo Frem! That assumes there is a black or white sharply defined division between "good" rights and a bad. Frem man, come join us in the real world. I know that you know how messy it is out here, and I'm pretty sure that you at least suspect that these lines as you draw them in your life are not universal.

Example: I am thoroughly disgusted by the idea of a healthy pregnant woman pulling a healthy 8.5 month fetus from her womb and killing it. I would never support such as thing (Note please my use of the words "healthy". Very important!) However, if someone heard this statement from me then started claiming that I want to stop all abortion access for everyone everywhere in all cases, I would have to hunt them down and give them a good sharp (NCIS) Gibb's back of the head slap.

Reality is NOT black or white. There are many rights that do not apply always for sure 100%. I do NOT say this because I secretly hope to enable the Dark Evil Empire of Central Authority. I say this because I believe to be the undeniable truth, and to ignore the shades of grey is to severely limit your potential for making positive, realistic, lasting change. A system of ethics (on which every legal code is built) has to be realistic, not idealized. You, my friend, are so far into idealization of your hatred of The Man that you seem to step outside our plane of existence from time to time.

May I gently suggest that you spend less time trumpeting the things you got right and more times mulling the things you did not. Do you?

You say: "Who's to say the in the future they won't... etc "

Of course in the future boundaries will be pushed. This is reality. This will never change. This does not have to handcuff us now. Maybe in the future some man will want to marry his dog. That has NO bearing on gay marriage, as you well know. Why do you jump right into this slippery slope thing, when you can so clearly see that it is BS in other matters?

IMO, You are letting your fear handcuff you so that you cannot hear a damn thing Niki or anyone else who differs from you has to say. It is a shame. In the end, it limits you.

In short, my advice: Get the fuck over it, shut your trap, and listen. (And please don't beat me up for that sentence LOL! I hope you know it's at last 50% tongue in cheek.) You are not a quiet guy, but your world would change if you took that listen, learn, and change approach you have in you job and went further with it. Try that here, and you might finally understand what Niki is really saying.

For Heaven's Sake, stop existing with the assumption that everyone who doesn't go 100% with you loves the Man. I mean, this claim you make that Niki loves the central power? Whooooa. That's just way off base Frem! More than anything that makes me thing that you need to pull yourself together. Niki has more than proved himself to be a champion for the individual rights. Really, I thought you were talking about someone else in that post, becuase... wow. If you really were addressing her--man, you seem a little unhinged.

At least, you sure aren't seeing Niki clearly.

(It's late, I'm sure many edits for typing and clarity will follow. And one rewrite/correction is done LOL... and another two rounds of editing. I think I'm done)

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
FREM
Quote:
See, the moment someone decides that they'll only defend a right if they approve of it, or how it is used, or who uses it, they're no longer defending rights, just participating in a turf and dominance game, AND they blow that all important credibility factor.

Who is to say some time in the future they'd not decide that hey, maybe certain people shouldn't vote, or perhaps THESE people don't deserve free speech, or THOSE people don't need fourth amendment protections ?

Nothing, cause they've already proven that they fail to understand the concept of universal rights, or simply do not care for it, or about it.
Not exactly the best guardians of human freedoms and rights, no ?
Personally, I think you're turning "rights" into a religion. There is no such thing as a "right". You can look up and down in nature, and not find a single such thing. To show you how artificial the construct is, I heard that even among western democracies, "universal" rights vary from less than 10 to more than 14.

Hello? What I get from that is that "rights" are pretty damn artificial. It is simply what each society promises in order to engage the cooperation of most of its members.

I think there are conditions under which humans thrive, and conditions where they don't.

Rights are a formal recognition of those conditions, that in previous times only the rich or those born to certain families were afforded that recognition.

Nowadays money and family can still bring unequal rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:22 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think there are conditions under which humans thrive, and conditions where they don't.

Rights are a formal recognition of those conditions, that in previous times only the rich or those born to certain families were afforded that recognition.

Nowadays money and family can still bring unequal rights.

I don't see owning guns as a right, and I'll never fully understand many Americans insistence that they are.

The only thing I can think of is that you tend to be a literal bunch, hence the number of fundies over there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
yes. Daring to speak out against " the collective ", shall not be tolerated.
Yes, and we can tell how important individuality is to you simply by seeing how important original thought is in your mental life. (she said drily)

Thinking yourself clever ?

That's rich.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Siggy

Quote:
Personally, I think you're turning "rights" into a religion. There is no such thing as a "right". You can look up and down in nature, and not find a single such thing.

Oh for the love of...
Essentially that's what they *ARE*, an artificial legal-social affirmation of the essential *belief* that all humans have certain inalienable human and civil rights.
And make no mistake, I consider such beliefs very important to being a human, and more importantly, a humane, being.
This from Terry Pratchets Hogfather

Quote:
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET— AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Of *COURSE* they're artificial constructs, but those very constructs are what make us human.

Quote:
Hello? What I get from that is that "rights" are pretty damn artificial. It is simply what each society promises in order to engage the cooperation of most of its members.

Yes, promises, implied social CONTRACT, one might even say - and c'mon doll, you know me well enough that I am pretty goddamn hard on broken contracts.

What strips my gears about it so is that when someone takes the attitude that the rights THEY favor, THEY care about, are not under assault so why should they care about the ones you favor coming under assault - it reeks of that "I-got-mine-eff-you!" attitude we both hate, even if for maybe different reasons...
And not to add gender politics to it, but it did kinda cross my mind that maybe one reason a lot of men might not be so quick to stand up for womens body and reproductive rights (along with all the other dumbass excuses, in addition to them, rather than displacing them, mind you) is that women tend to not stand up for, or even stand against, a lot of the rights men care about, so why should they ?
Just a theory that, but it does make one wonder.
Now me, I favor the one-of-us-is-all-of-us strategy, which might SEEM rigid, but in fact it is removing absolutes from the question entire by making it a single shade of grey.

Mal4

Quote:
I know that you know how messy it is out here, and I'm pretty sure that you at least suspect that these lines as you draw them in your life are not universal.

Well aware, but when you wind up facing the apathetic and half-arsed scorn from factions which absolutely, laughably, ludicrously outnumber and outpower you, what card does one have LEFT to play but absolute rabidity as a counterforce ?

Quote:
May I gently suggest that you spend less time trumpeting the things you got right and more times mulling the things you did not. Do you?

I do, maybe more than I should, but it's a serious stick in my craw when I go and say...
X is a very bad idea, and will lead to Y.
And then get called paranoid, overreacting, unrealistic, and all those other things, and then...
*Y then happens*
And suddenly no one wants to talk about it, especially their own culpability, and yanno, a few times wouldn't be so bad, but when we're talkin folks who've seen me call it in advance so many times, over years, DECADES even, who *still* instantly dismiss my concerns out of hand even knowing how damn often it's blown up EXACTLY THAT WAY....
That'd make anyone a wee bit crabby about it, wouldn't it ?

As for the rest, and I really *don't* care for discussing this...
I pointed out hypocrisy and called someone on deception, only to be told to stand down by someone willing to hold a longstanding friendship hostage to that demand ?
Basically sit down and shut up, or we're not friends any more ?
How is it not obvious the course that would take as soon as an "or-else" like that gets thrown in my face, why would I ever trust someone who would do such a thing ?

Again, I choose to leave that the hell alone, mostly, this is just poking a wasps nest it is, I have explained my position, and my reasons for it, dozens of times - even if folks don't wanna hear it, or want to pretend I said something else cause it's more convenient, or ignore it every damn time I do, I have stated my case - even offered a reasonable and quite well constructed proposal that satisfied *everyones* (and here's the rub) ADMITTED goals, and what then but *both* "sides" moving the goalposts as fast as they could and then quickly and utterly abandoning the discussion - not really an encouragement of trust is it now ?

In the end I think it comes down to fairness - if one cannot respect the human and civil rights they do not favor, the use of them in ways they don't care for, or by people they do not care for...
What then, gives them the right to demand their own rights be respected ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think there are conditions under which humans thrive, and conditions where they don't.

Rights are a formal recognition of those conditions, that in previous times only the rich or those born to certain families were afforded that recognition.

Nowadays money and family can still bring unequal rights.

I don't see owning guns as a right, and I'll never fully understand many Americans insistence that they are.

The only thing I can think of is that you tend to be a literal bunch, hence the number of fundies over there.

It's a long range perspective on that one. See, in past cultures and societies there were some class or caste based divisions on what people could and could not own.

Only the upper class could have weapons, both because they could afford it and because they passed laws, and they tended to oppress the BEJESUS out of the lower classes because of it.

Protecting yourself from the transgressions of a bunch of uncaring selfish exploitative upper-class power tripping authoritarian assholes falls loosely under the idea of a kind of self-defense, and under that reasoning this provided the context for ownership of weapons to be specifically enumerated as a right in the US.

There is also something to be said for self-defense in general... Though I despair of how it can be misapplied to actions that may not have been entirely defensive.

I also admit to some personal distaste in the area of guns. Seems to me there are not near enough people who view owning, caring for, personalizing, practicing with, and maintaining such a weapon as the responsibility and honour that it is. They're too often used casually, crudely, for brutish crime. It's a goddamned shame and a waste of a potentially beautiful piece of technology.

I don't own guns because too many things about them are ugly. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2013 6:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM and BYTE- I agree that "rights" form a kind of "social contract" (Rousseau). But BYTE has done an excellent historical analysis about how the "right" to own guns has become enshrined in our laws, and it looks more like a historical accident or a static event rather than an approach with future applicability. The right to own guns, I've come to conclude, is meaningless in a world where tyranny is imposed not only by guns equal to whatever the citizen might have, but also by by RPGs and missiles and tanks and drones, bits and bytes, and money.

It seems that rather than sitting down and examining this "social contract" for what it is, and redrawing the terms of the contract, as it were, we get stuck defending rather blindly what was handed to us.

If I were to sit down and think of the "rights" which would create a human society, I'm not sure I would include all of the constitutional amendments.

I think I might start out with:

The right to clean air, clean water, and clean soil.
The right to a job.

You see, I think that in a frontier society, and using Rousseau as a guide, the FF counted on all of that freedom "out there"... the primitive wilderness... so that people could achieve the base of Maslow's hiearchy of needs on their own. They never foresaw a time when EVERYTHING would be owned, and that a person could be trapped in a web of another's indifference and greed... a web in which people became someone else's dinner. So the FF jumped way up on Maslow's scale- all the way to self-actualization when they wrote their rights, without assuring the more fundamental right of survival.

I wuold have to think about society, and how power has relentless concentrated- no matter under fuedalism, capitalism, or socialism- before I came up with a theoretical list of "rights" might steer a society in the direction I would wish it to go. One consideration I would need to take into account is that prolly less than 10% of any population want any continuing inovlement with governance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2013 7:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thinking yourself clever ?

No, I'm trying to be a SKEPTIC... something you seem to want to be.

In order to be a skeptic, one has to question everything... not only question old data and old assumptions, but also find new data, and put it together in ways that make MORE sense than the story that's currently being told. There is a universe of information out there.... but you won't find insight on Fox, NBC, CBS, Breitbart, Limbaugh, or Real Time (Bill Maher). What you have to do... and at one time you WERE able .... is bring in some thoughts from an unrelated topic... "How much energy does this involve in terms of megawatts?" or "What is missing from this coverage?" or "What does this have to do with inheritance?" and just keep tossing ideas against each other. Keep working on this for a decade and then you'll start to come up with ideas that nobody has told you to think.

That's one of the reasons WHY I've been posting about Fukushima. Just because the MSM doesn't run stories about it doesn't mean it's gone away. Everything that the media is NOW talking about was evident from the very beginning, to someone who just took a little time to THINK about it. Use your brain, son.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2013 7:43 AM

Quote:
FREM and BYTE- I agree that "rights" form a kind of "social contract" (Rousseau). But BYTE has done an excellent historical analysis about how the "right" to own guns has become enshrined in our laws, and it looks more like a historical accident or a static event rather than an approach with future applicability. The right to own guns, I've come to conclude, is meaningless in a world where tyranny is imposed not only by guns equal to whatever the citizen might have, but also by by RPGs and missiles and tanks and drones, bits and bytes, and money.

That's why I'm okay with some forms of hacking as self-defense too. :)

Though too often it's cointelpro stuff and Israel messing with everyone else, dropping goddamn viruses everywhere into infrastructure.

Viruses are so annoying and dangerous, they're like computer age nukes. I've seen very few viruses ever used for good causes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 23, 2013 7:52 AM