Another School Shooting [Stoneman Douglas] (2/14/2018)

The BBQ Pit
501

Here’s a defination.

So, an intense or passionate dislike is hatred. You have very intense and passionate dislike for liberals. You lie constantly about what they have done and what they are thinking. You ascribe rather evil motives to anything you don’t like. You dismiss liberals as being stupid at bes, malicious at worst.

If you want to call that “not hate”, then you need to stretch the definition.

Right, and you are talking about inanimate objects here. If you are disgusted by a person that you hold in contempt, then there is some hatred going on there.

And many people hate homosexuals. Then they lie and try to claim that it is not the people they hate, but the activity. But then they treat the people with disgust and contempt, showing off their lie.

And there you go, making generalizations and ascribing evil motives to your political opponents. This is not something that is done by someone who is able to consider their political opponents rationally. Making up lies about them to demonize them is something that is done to further hatred.

It is not the disagreement, it is the demonization that you spew out that shows your hatred.

I long ago noticed that failed attempts at mind reading is one of the chief characteristics of reactionary activism, and making up lies about what your opponents do and think are one of the ways that it manifests itself.

Well, here you are, making shit up and lying, while ascribing evil motives to anyone who does not agree with you. I don’t think that liberal paint all republicans and conservatives as hateful. There are many who are reasonable people with which we have differences in goals. We can work with those sorts of people.

Now, people like yourself, who will lie and lie and lie in order to try to make your political opponents look bad, who will lie about history, who will sneer and drop contempt upon anyone you “dislike”, ascribing hatred to you, as an individual, is not broad brushing the conservatives, it is just calling you out for being the shitty person that you are.

Now, to be fair, after someone has had interactions with you, then they may ascribe to other conservatives similar attitudes that you have, in which case, they are generalizing, thinking that all conservatives are as hateful and dishonest as you are, and that’s a problem. Unfortunately, the only way to stop making conservatives look bad is for you to stop making conservatives look bad. That’s not likely.

502

“When I use a word,” Starving Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
.

503

Well, now I do: what you evidently mean by it is “not anywhere near gun-free but with private gun ownership rates substantially lower than in the US”.

You of course have the right to use any words to mean whatever you personally want them to mean, but you don’t have the right to expect other people automatically to understand your intended meaning when it differs so far from the accepted meaning.

And it certainly casts an unflattering light on your accusations that other people are engaging in “semantic dishonesty”.

Let’s observe the brisk locomotion of those particular goalposts in this discussion:

You’ve now carefully excised the qualifier “all”, which is what I was objecting to in the first place, in order to pretend that your original statements were actually accurate. No, they weren’t.

It really doesn’t take any “ferreting” at all: you leave similar steaming “nuggets” of blatant factual error all over every discussion you engage in on these boards.

However, I’m willing to accept your grudging and ungracious “not hair-splittingly correct” as a genuine retraction, and will now proceed to honor my part of the proposed deal:

I don’t think high incidence of frequent unprotected sexual intercourse with a large partner pool is good for society. Allowing it is preferable to legally prohibiting it with antifornication laws and such, but it has many negative consequences ranging from unwanted pregnancies to the spread of STDs. Of course such behavior was not directly caused by 1960s liberalism nor is it by any means only liberals who engage in it, but there’s a reasonable case to be made that liberal ideals of sexual liberation significantly contributed to normalizing it.

Note, however, just to forestall the likelihood of your getting all excited about this unexpected common ground and trying to drag these goalposts all over the shop too in consequence, that this is not to be taken as any kind of blanket condemnation of, say, scantily clad pop singers wiggling their butts on television or two consenting adults responsibly choosing to have sex outside of marriage. I think people need to take responsibility for their own actions and not comprehensively blame individual bad choices on vaguely delineated “cultural influences”.

504

I’m afraid not, unless somebody attached a GPS tracker to the goalposts.

505

My apologies for this short hijack. Why are you folks trying to engage in decent and honest discussion with SA? That’s not his forte.

506

Why should they listen to you when you: lied about my being the worst kind of racist; came up with nothing whatever to prove your allegations when challenged to do so by me; then slunk away into the night without a word as though it never happened only to come back now to hypocritically post this shit about honesty and decency.

Given your status on the SDMB Advisory Board (whatever that is) I somehow never expected all these years that you would be a piece of shit, but boy was I ever wrong! And as you’ve shown, you’re not only a lying piece of shit but a cowardly one as well. Anyone who takes your word on anything should be aware they do so at their own peril.

507

Oh, irony. The one time you admit it and…

508

Starving Artist, I don’t think I’ve ever engaged you before, but I’m going to give it a shot now (no pun intended).

From what I’ve read, you tend to shift the blame for the epidemic of school shootings from the sheer glut of guns in the US populace, to the rise of liberal ideas and behaviours, especially in the last 30-odd years. IOW, it’s not GUNS, it’s the decline in the quality of personal and community relationships to blame, right?

Sex, drugs, rock and roll…right?

I don’t know whether you noticed, but sex, drugs and rock’n’roll came to the rest of the western world around a nanosecond after it hit whitebread 1950’s America. Britain, Europe, Canada, Australia…we all got swamped by those nasty liberal ideas, but for some reason, we aren’t going around killing each other to anywhere near the extent that you folk in the US are. Why would that be?

I’m gonna spell it out for you SA. It’s because the countries above (and others I haven’t listed) have sensible gun-control measures. Guns have not been banned, but you need to provide a friggen’ good reason for wanting to get a gun license AND permission to purchase a gun. You need to jump through hoops, and then a few more, before you get a gun in your hot and sweaty little hand.

And it works. Your deaths from random fuckheads with a gun are a blight on your claim to being a civilized country. It has NOTHING to do with hippies rooting each other at Woodstock, or people smoking dope, or even black single mums.

It’s because people like YOU are too stubborn and stupid to see the root cause of the problem.

It’s the guns.

509

Sorry, no.

It’s the worship of guns.

510

Okay, real quick and then i’m out for the night.

  1. Much of the random gun violence and school shootings that are occurring are the result of a society that no longer raises kids properly. Discipline is called ‘beating’, often there’s either no father present as the kid is growing up, or there’s a succession of men, and victimhood is increasingly seen as bestowing moral superiority upon its recipient. Thus we’ve got a ton of snowflakes who can’t cope with the vicissitudes of life and decide that the ultimate victim statement is to shoot up a bunch of innocent kids.

  2. As I’ve already stated, this country can’t be compared with others because we have huge diversity and racism-based problems on a scale that western European countries (often referred to as ‘the rest of the civilized world’ or simply ‘the entire rest of teh world’ around here) and Australia haven’t had to contend with. Plus their societies have been more stable and haven’t gone through the upheaval kicked off by the counterculture revolution in the U.S., nor suffered the virtually endless societal difficulties set in motion by it. Hippies didn’t cause of this themselves, but they set the wheels in motion for the idiocy that has occurred since.

  3. Gun ownership is enshrined in our country’s Constitution and many of our citizens would literally go to war and kill people in order to prevent their guns being taken away. They firmly believe that gun ownership is their guarantee against takeover by a tyrannical government. Some point to the catastrophes in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho as cases in point. Other point to Cliven Bundy, who got into a dispute with the government over fees to graze his cattle on what was claimed to be government land but which he, I believe, disputed. The government showed up to seize his cattle but were prevented from doing so in a standoff with armed Bundy supporters. The end result was that the government backed off and Bundy continues to graze his land as he did before. Had those protestors not been armed the government would have run roughshod over them, taken Bundy’s cattle and with it his livelihood, and probably arrested everyone or almost everyone there. So there is strong motivation on the part of many Americans to maintain gun ownership to ensure freedom from government run amok, which is allegedly the very reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

  4. We have 300 million guns in this country, many of which are untraceable and in the hands of the this country’s criminal class. There is simply no reasonable way to expect that we’ll be able to take their guns away or keep guns from them because of theft, robbery, whatever. And the flip side is that the more people who don’t have guns, the more vulnerable they are to crimes committed by criminals with guns who no longer have need to fear them from the general populace.

  5. Most school and other random butthurt snowflake surprise attack type killing are committed with legally purchased and legally owned guns to begin with. Laws to restrict purchase of these weapons with background checks, etc., would have done nothing to prevent those shootings.

  6. How many rape, robbery and murder victims over the last fifty years in your allegedly civilized countries without guns have been raped, robbed and/or killed by criminals when they could have been saved had they had had the protection afforded by firearms. Just because a country doesn’t allow guns it doesn’t mean it’s populace is free from criminal violence. London’s murder rate, for example, just surpassed New York City’s for the first time in history. So again I can’t help but wonder how many people have been savagely injured or killed in all these countries in all this time that they’ve been deprived of the self-defense advantage of gun ownership. My guess is that it’s in the millions. And I don’t have to guess that this fact gets virtually no publicity whatsoever. So essentially you’re asking us to trade one illicit gun death for who knows how many innocent deaths for want of them.

This is utterly, utterly, ridiculous and I can’t believe people are so stupid or so wedded to the idea that guns are bad, mmkay, that they willingly and deliberately turn a blind eye to the huge number of deaths that occur which would have been prevented had the victims had possession of firearms to defend themselves with. In fact I am absolutely flabbergasted by this attitude and it’s yet another example of how I’ll never understand the liberal mind if I live to be a 1,000. You don’t trade one illicit gun death for a hundred or a thousand more by other means just to get rid of guns! How. Fucking. Stupid. Is. That? Criminey! :smack:

Plus guns are cool and fun to shoot. YeeHaw!

There, I think that about covers it. Anything else?

511

Indeed so!

[ul]
[li]Geraldo Rivera said Tuesday that the advertiser boycott against Fox News host Laura Ingraham, launched by Parkland student activist David Hogg, is “an attack” on the First Amendment and must be stopped…[/li]
[li]Unrelenting calls for advertisers to drop Fox News host Laura Ingraham has network competitor Brian Stelter worried. The host of “Reliable Sources” told viewers over the weekend that a “dangerous” mindset appears to have taken root in America in which boycotts are the primary means of settling contentious issues…[/li]
[li]The snowballing advertiser boycott of Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News is being led by “shadowy radical groups,” Bill O’Reilly, her ousted former colleague on the network, claimed Monday…[/li][/ul]

Heather furriners who dump sugar in their porridge!

The only proper response to the assertion that Europe and Australia haven’t contended with race-conflict problems is a long loud laugh that would put Vincent Price, the (Anthony Ainley) Master, and the (Mark Hamill) Joker to shame.

Hmmm… what’s different about us as compared to them? If only someone on this thread would mention some point of differentiation…?

OK, one point for you. That’s a valid example of how problems are sometimes caused by lack of firmness and discipline.

I’m going to need higher bilge-waders for the rest, so I’ll quit here.

512

  1. If you hit kids they will not become violent ? And if you don’t hit they will ? *Mind blown *

  2. No racism in Europe and AUSTRALIA? Are you out of your mind ???
    Also Western Europe had its own cultural revolutions in the sixties. Google “Europe 1968” for example.

  3. You think the Bundys could not have succeeded without guns ? Hm, I wonder how those hippies took over everything without them…
    Also I don’t think many consider the Bundys heroes but gun-nut rednecks. However, if they had called the local newspaper the end result might have been same, without them looking like straight from “Deliverance”.

  4. ( again ? ) if they are untraceable how do you know their number ? Maybe you are just overestimating, just like all other threats. Also ISTR that you could get an assault rifle with few hundred dollars in Australia before they were ‘grabbed’, but you still can get an illegal one if you really try - and have 40 000 dollars for it. What do you think a criminal does if he gets 40 000 dollars ? Yeah, sure, he burns it all on a single gun.

  5. so you’re saying that these background checks and laws should be more strict ?

  6. Yes, London surpassed NY ( February-March 37/32 ) in number of murder INVESTIGATIONS that were started. However, between January and March NY still leads 50/45. And if you take 12 months London is far behind, 134/290. Maybe its just a short spike, although the murder rate has gone up in London, but most of all NY has come way down.
    Also those cases have mostly been arguments that have escalated until the one stabs the other. And your solution is to give guns to these guys ??? Now, how stupid is THAT ?
    But, yes, shooting is fun. I don’t think many here disputes that.

513

Ah, yes, good old liberalism and its affinity for criminals. Here in the British online newspaper The Sun is a heart-warming story about a 78-year-old man with a wife who has dementia acosted in his own home by two bad guys, one of whom was wielding a screwdriver (evil guns are outlawed so people won’t get shot, you see. Stabbings however still seem to be okay, but I digress…). One bad guy goes upstairs, presumably where the enfeebled wife was, and the one with the screwdriver takes the old man into the kitchen, whereupon a struggle occurs and the intruder gets stabbed, probably with his own screwdriver, and subsequently dies.

So what happens to the 78-year-old man in Merry Olde Liberal England who killed a bad guy for breaking into his home and threatening both him and his wife? Why, he was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and further arrested on suspicion of murder.

Admittedly he hasn’t been formally charged, but he has been arrested and these are the ridiculous grounds under which he’s being detained.

Furthermore, what the hell’s up with five people in virtual hazmat suits and who knows how many cops investigating this? A burglar gets stabbed with a screwdriver by an old man and it takes whole team of eight to ten taxpayer funded lackeys to investigate? Ridiculous. (Though I probably shouldn’t talk; the same nonsense goes on here too, probably as a result of onerous requirements necessary to actually obtain a conviction in court.)

Stuff like this is exactly why so many of us on the right don’t want liberals making laws about anything. Bizzaro World thinking is not our thing.

Anyway, here’s the link:

514

:dubious: Anybody who causes the death of another person in an unwitnessed altercation is going to get investigated by the law, no matter how much of a baddie the decedent may have been or how elderly the decedent’s killer may have been. If somebody in my home ended up dead at my hands, even if they were there illegally, I would expect the cops to haul me in too.

If it turned out that I was acting in justifiable self-defense, I would expect to be subsequently released and not charged. But I wouldn’t expect the cops just to take my word for it that the guy I killed needed killin’.

Really? How many people would you consider the maximum permissible number to investigate the scene where a person was fatally wounded, allegedly while attempting to commit a crime? To me, that kind of sounds like a situation where I would want the police to be pretty thorough.

515

Neither would I. But he wasn’t just taken in for questioning, he was arrested on specific complaints of grievous bodily harm and suspicion of murder.

I would think one or two would be sufficient. It wasn’t a complex and dangerous robbery of the Bank of England, for crying out loud. The guy stabbed an intruder with a screwdriver in his kitchen. Why 5 people in hazmat outfits to gather evidence or figure out what happened? I can see the hazmat suits when dealing with blood but I see no need whatsoever for that many people to investigate.

516

Snip, and bolding mine.

Those aren’t hazmat outfits. They wear them to prevent scene contamination.

517

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks.

518

He was arrested on suspicion of both those offenses. Given that it’s acknowledged that he actually carried out the fatal stabbing, why do you think it’s so unreasonable that the police are investigating whether or not the stabbing was a criminal act?

AFAIK (mostly from rerun episodes of Morse and Inspector Lewis), all investigators on a homicide site with bodily fluids around are supposed to put on a hazmat suit (ETA: as per Wolf333’s comment and as I should have remembered from the abovementioned shows, they’re “clean suits” or “oversuits”, not hazmat suits). So that’s one investigating officer plus, say, one assisting detective, one photographer, one or two collectors of forensic evidence… yeah, by my count having four or five people in hazmat suits (see above) doesn’t really suggest a lot of redundancy. Then you’ve got your two or three uniformed constables or whoever to stand guard at the crime scene and keep away the curious public. I’m really not seeing how you get an unjustifiably lavish expenditure of resources out of this.

519

And? How do you think the legal system works in his part of the world? It just means that he’s being interviewed under caution, with the right to legal representation. Which you’d kind of expect when somebody has died of a stab wound in his house. It speaks nothing to whether he’ll be charged with anything.

520

A stab wound, moreover, which there seems to be no dispute that he was responsible for inflicting.

I hold no brief for burglarious attempts and I certainly hope it turns out that this homeowner did not actually commit any crime. But only a credulous idiot would maintain that he shouldn’t be investigated on suspicion of having possibly committed a crime.