indiucky
Grandmaster
Is that like salty but sweet?
Yeah....Yeah it is....
Is that like salty but sweet?
Yeah....Yeah it is....
I never thought you were being condescending.... that means to talk down to.
You really are incorrigible.
Your continued belief in the existence of our better angels is charming, but perhaps undeserved
The "name-calling, labeling and general marginalizing" for me began with seeing these kids on TV claiming that any supporter of the NRA or anyone who doesn't want to see all "assault rifles" banned is complicit in the murders of the unlucky 17 and has blood on their hands
They are not seeking to engage with the opposite viewpoint on any factual basis, they are appealing almost purely to emotion. That they've been through an emotional event can help understand their willingness to be useful idiots but not excuse it. How close was the shooter to Hogg, actually? There were 3000 kids on that campus, if the shooter was half a campus away from Hogg I fail to see it as a potentially life changing, existential experience for him. How many of their acquaintances are likely to have been killed or injured - or injured others - texting while driving? But somehow I doubt they would be calling for cell phones to be made illegal and confiscated. Where is the acknowledgement that attempting to outlaw a class of firearms ex post facto would without doubt require confiscation, and how dangerous that attempt would likely be for civil society. Where is the acknowledgement that if you really, truly want to end drunken driving forever you would have to outlaw alcohol and actively police that decision because merely having a law that says you can't do it doesn't stop people intent on the behavior. Where is the acknowledgement that the same is true for this type of mass murder, that laws against certain weapons will not stop them from happening, that only the removal of almost all weapons and the active policing of a prohibition will have any chance of acheiving the results they say they want
If you want to play on the big boy stage, you should not rely on the empathy people have for your situation to be a shield you can hide behind for long and you should engage people in the arena of ideas and not emotion
Why is that a problem?
Is it no different than the oft-repeated charge on INGO that all of Islam is complicit in terrorism for not denouncing it strongly enough?
People should not take offense at being hoisted on their own petards.
Why is that a problem?
Is it no different than the oft-repeated charge on INGO that all of Islam is complicit in terrorism for not denouncing it strongly enough?
People should not take offense at being hoisted on their own petards.
[It's a problem because; as the one who often takes us to task for judging all musselmen by the actions of a few and has no sympathy for the emotions that yet another random mass murder for faux religious reasons gives rise to; you are not condemning the same behavior when exhibited by these kids and are in fact arguing that broad generalizations based on the emotions du jour are understandable. It seems inconsistent]
Says who? You?
[So are you arguing that it would be allowable (even understandable) for Jim Steinle to want to see all illegal immigrants summarily deported, because he has been through an emotional event (the random murder of his daughter by one). Somehow I don't think so. So why countenance Mr Hoggs characterization of everyone who doesn't want to ban all (or to be charitable, most) guns as having the blood of the 17 on their hands?]
Great.
Unfortunately, that's not how the court of public opinion works. They ARE victims. Right now, they ARE the arbiters of the debate.
I'm cautioning against the equal-and-opposite knee jerk reaction of name calling/labeling/marginalizing.
[Speaking only for myself, this smacks of the "tactics" of the last at least 40 to 50 years, where the left is free to demonize but we cannot meet them on the field with similar weaponry because people might think ill of us. It is manifestly a losing strategy. I can clearly remember that honorable soldiers returning from Viet Nam were demonized as "baby killers". I can't really remember any of the genteel appeals to reason made to refute that characterization. William F Buckley is dead and the enlightened arena of discourse he thought he lived in existed mostly in his own mind, any Ivy League version of "the good old days" I would rather engage such ideas at whatever level the assault comes from and go for the win]
Let's leave Trump's election for a different thread, eh?
You can't take this away!
Lets just say when they cut out your appendix, the plumbers go on strike. The 6 day strike has been lifted, much to my relief.
[video=youtube_share;SNVj59B_sLE]http://youtu.be/SNVj59B_sLE[/video]
Anybody else, want to tell me how much they agree with Dana Loesch's statement?
I don't even hear or read the statement. I only caught the tail end of the discussion and thought the clip fit.
Oh, sorry then, Loesch made the comment about how it's rating gold, to have White mothers crying one TV about their children, saying the media "loves it." I said earlier that I didn't believe it, others disagreed. Why would the media love the pain of white mothers?
Oh, sorry then, Loesch made the comment about how it's rating gold, to have White mothers crying one TV about their children, saying the media "loves it." I said earlier that I didn't believe it, others disagreed. Why would the media love the pain of white mothers?
"There's a bobble headed bleach blonde, comes on at 5. She can talk about a plane crash with a gleam in her eye...."
[It's a problem because; as the one who often takes us to task for judging all musselmen by the actions of a few and has no sympathy for the emotions that yet another random mass murder for faux religious reasons gives rise to; you are not condemning the same behavior when exhibited by these kids and are in fact arguing that broad generalizations based on the emotions du jour are understandable. It seems inconsistent]
[So are you arguing that it would be allowable (even understandable) for Jim Steinle to want to see all illegal immigrants summarily deported, because he has been through an emotional event (the random murder of his daughter by one). Somehow I don't think so. So why countenance Mr Hoggs characterization of everyone who doesn't want to ban all (or to be charitable, most) guns as having the blood of the 17 on their hands?]
[Speaking only for myself, this smacks of the "tactics" of the last at least 40 to 50 years, where the left is free to demonize but we cannot meet them on the field with similar weaponry because people might think ill of us. It is manifestly a losing strategy. I can clearly remember that honorable soldiers returning from Viet Nam were demonized as "baby killers". I can't really remember any of the genteel appeals to reason made to refute that characterization. William F Buckley is dead and the enlightened arena of discourse he thought he lived in existed mostly in his own mind, any Ivy League version of "the good old days" I would rather engage such ideas at whatever level the assault comes from and go for the win]
Trump isn't the disease, he's the cure
Anybody else, want to tell me how much they agree with Dana Loesch's statement?
I'll just single out one assertion (divorced from the author, whom I respect GREATLY): the kid survived a shooting but that doesn't make him an expert on gun violence.
Ok.
Let's play that dismissive attitude out. What makes INGOers gun violence experts? Proficiency with firearms? Well, that may make us collectively better at dishing out gun violence, but it is an awkward qualifier to have an opinion on the topic.
Really, violent thugs? That is a strong accusation. Please post links or retract that statement.