Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » San Bernadino attack (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: San Bernadino attack
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I jokingly suggested I was a part of however... would be a conspiracy Pete.

Acceptable responces were: new found insight, dry chuckling or quietly amused shaking of one's head.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If a member of Daesch kills his wife in a jealous rage is it terrorism"

If he puts it on YouTube, or hangs her body out the window, then probably yes. Jealous rage does not preclude other motives.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Religiously motivated terrorism has long (always?) been an excuse to act on other motives. On the (rare?) occasions it is not, they are likely manipulated by someone else's alterior motives.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But, Obama and the left want this to be workplace violence to pro txt the narrative of peaceful Muslims and containment of terrorism.
Nice try, but he explicitly said that it could be terrorism, workplace violence or some combination or even other factors might be at play that we don't yet know about. Who on the left is insisting that it was just another case of workplace violence?

Why do you persist in twisting every bit of information that wanders into your head?

Grant:
quote:
But to say that he was giving out an innocent person's name is going too far. He had the right name, just wrong order.
There are *real* people with the name he gave. He should have waited until it was clear or said nothing.
quote:
To implicate that Rafi himself was endangering others is to somewhat exaggerate Rafi's audience.
That assumes that Rafi G isn't participating on forums that lap this stuff up, which I'm pretty sure he does. He just likes to dump his pearl-shaped nuggets here because he doesn't ever have to take responsibility for what he says.

I like how everybody is upper-casing "THE PROBLEM" when what I wrote was "the real problem". What I thought I clearly stated was that by rumor-mongering he is effectively engaging in rabble-rousing. This is the kind of thing that litters the country's history with lynchings of innocent people, usually blacks in the south, because something bad happened and somebody shouted something about maybe a black man had something to do with it. It remains to be seen how far the right-wing crazies will take the backlash. I wrote what I did because we're already heading down that road and this is yet another step. I take back nothing that I said.
quote:
I agree that the Obama Administration, and it's supporters, have a vested interest in not having it not presented as terrorism.
Vested interest? Really? What do *they* gain from denying that it was terrorism? If you think they do have a vested interest, then don't you think the screaming members of the GOP who insist that it was nothing but terrorism also have a vested interest? If both sides have a vested interest, who wins or loses if it turns out to be a complicated mess of all possible interpretations?

I don't want to pick winners and losers. I want to know the answer and then figure out how to respond. The one thing we can be sure of is that gun violence was involved and we should do what we can to limit that.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Pete, does it require evidence to make claims these days? Fwiw, I have no evidence he was involved. Are you trying to start a rumor?

No. Just trying to teach some Ornerians some of the finer points of English grammar, namely the avoidance of ambiguous and misplaced modifiers. Bad spelling and grammar are tolerable on the internet when they don't actually say something that was not intended.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, are you trying to say you have a real problem with partisan rabble rousing?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Why not add a middle aged white man to your scenario? Inadvertently or not you are tangling racism/religious persecution into your security question.

I'm appealing to the worst prejudices of the right-wing 2A die-hards here. My next question was going to be whether you would change your answers if the purchasers were white. Don't interrupt.

[ December 04, 2015, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Obama and the left want this to be workplace violence to pro txt the narrative of peaceful Muslims and containment of terrorism."

Ultimately they hate middle America more than they fear ISIS or the cartels. They see ISIS and nutjob shootings as a useful pretext to do an end run around the bill of rights, take away the People's right to defend themselves, and enact harsh laws against saying anything that offends designated victim groups.

-----
After AI's comment, edited to add: that may be why some say "the problem" is conservatives complaining about the killings rather than the killings themselves.

[ December 04, 2015, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
. I wasn't referring to anyone on Ornery and cross-posted with AI.Thanks for the inadvertent illustration, Ai

[ December 04, 2015, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Al, are you trying to say you have a real problem with partisan rabble rousing?

Uh, what?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Obama and the left want this to be workplace violence to pro txt the narrative of peaceful Muslims and containment of terrorism."

Ultimately they hate middle America more than they fear ISIS or the cartels. They see ISIS and nutjob shootings as a useful pretext to do an end run around the bill of rights, take away the People's right to defend themselves, and enact harsh laws against saying anything that offends designated victim groups.

Was this a serious post or another tongue in cheek bit of sarcasm? If the former, it's despicable; if that latter, you should label it more clearly.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lloyd Perna:
So the politicians at the FBI aren't willing to say it yet.
But if a crazy white guy shooting up a black church is considered terrorism by many people on this forum, why won't those same people label this attack as terrorism?

Comparing an act that is tragic but doesn't inherently inspire fear in others to one that actually imparts terror to a segment of the population?

It's true that, in as much as we're not clear on the motive of the attack, calling it terrorism upfront is questionable. But without clear evidence that this attack was actually intended to cause terror, the only terrorizing it does raises directly out of the efforts of people to scare others by asserting that it should scare them, while targeting a group that has been historically and is routinely targeted causes terror regardless of nominal intent.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New York Time reporting that Tashfeen Malik had posted online her pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State - ISIS.

[ December 04, 2015, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Rafi ]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's recap. We have a couple that collects pipe bombs, body armor, weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. They are linked to multiple other suspected terrorists and at least one of them has pledged allegiance to ISIS. They orchestrate a shooting resulting in a dozen dead and 17 wounded before being killed in a gunfight (and tossing bombs ) with police as well as leaving one bomb at the target facility.

Motivations remain a utter mystery to some. [DOH] [LOL]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Motivations remain a utter mystery to some
Well, since there's no evidence of exactly what the motivation was, that just means that they're not speculating based on circumstantial evidence. All of those things ould be true and they still have decided that they were upset about him not getting employee of the month an gone off the handle.

Heck they could have been plotting an actual act of terrorism that completely got sidelined to work out a personal grudge here because they had the stockpile and couldn't keep a finger on their temper.

It still stands as a fact that the only significant fear generated by this in the population large by this is that being created by those jumping up and down an yelling terrorism, not the event itself.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does an "act of terrorism" need to promote your agenda, or just erode / disrupt the status quo of the society/community/group you target?

Can you say for certain that ambiguity of motive is not advantageous in some situations?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Upset about not being named employee of the month is a potential reason. Ok. That's..just. Yeah. Wow. [DOH]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there any "rule" in jihad that you cannot target a specific group of infidels who pissed you off? Do selfish motives taint your ritcheous answer to a divine call to arms?

Does it even F'ing matter?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, I have not made any assertions yet about the motivation of either the shooters in Colorado Springs or San Bernardino, even though in each case there's considerable initial evidence as to motivation.

Second, try to remember that this is about actually people who are dead or injured, and the evil people who committed those acts. One of my co-workers has a nephew on the San Bernadino police force who was involved in the response.

Third, the nature of the evil may cut across partisan positions. San Bernardino is a weird case because it involves both terrorist associations and workplace violence associations. One possible scenario is that terrorists planted the woman to seduce an American citizen (including marriage and having a child?) to take advantage of the access American citizens have to weaponry, and to facilitate a workplace violence crime. If that scenario were to be valid, then corrective actions might be both in terms of a higher scrutiny on who American citizens can marry as well as putting limitations on ammunition and weapons.

[ December 04, 2015, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I ask because in response to the SB shootings the Senate voted down new gun laws that would consider whether the purchaser was a on a terrorist watch list, was mentally ill or a felon. Freedom requires that they all have as many guns as they want.

Al, did you know that in 2007 the OIG found that roughly 38% of the names on the terrorist watch list are inaccurate? I believe that there should be a higher standard of proof than that if you want to take away someone's constitutional rights.

Would you be ok with using that list to take away someone's right to vote?

Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Does an "act of terrorism" need to promote your agenda, or just erode / disrupt the status quo of the society/community/group you target?

Can you say for certain that ambiguity of motive is not advantageous in some situations?

The motive could be either, but I don't see how ambiguity is advantageous. If one is attached to terrorism it all has the same ultimate objective.

I've read recently that the Paris attacks enhanced ISIS' reputation in France and was partially encouraged as a recruiting tool. It made France seem vulnerable, and the hope was that a repressive response by the government would further alienate suggestive or sympathetic observers to join the cause. France has much more government authority over surveillance and freedoms than we do, but they don't seem to have stepped up the response in the way they had hoped for. In fact, Hollande went on TV a week after the shootings and pledged that France would take another 30,000 Syrian refugees next year.

In this country it's not clear the same provocations or outcomes would operate or would get results in the same ways. As I mentioned the Senate refuses to curtail gun purchasers in the aftermath of the SB shootings, even to people on terrorist watch lists.

Beyond that it isn't clear what hard-line right-wingers actually do want to do. None of the candidates or those in Congress want to actually do anything in this country, but want to bomb the hell out of random regions of the Mideast where ISIS may (or may not) be holding territory.

That doesn't solve the problem that vexes them the most, which is the fear (not the reality) of terrorism on US soil. True freedom lovers don't want the US to collect intelligence on US citizens, which makes it harder to find these people before they do something. They don't want to limit their legal access to guns, which they would then use to mow down innocent people. Many of them want to close our borders, literally or figuratively, so that "those people" can't come here and cause mayhem, but one of the SB shooters is a native born US citizen.

Let's ask our resident hard-line right-winger, Rafi G, what should be done in this country to protect us from terrorism by citizens or visitors, whether here legally or illegally. Anybody else who wants to jump in is also welcome, of course.

[ December 04, 2015, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al, did you know that in 2007 the OIG found that roughly 38% of the names on the terrorist watch list are inaccurate?
Does that mean that 62% of the names are accurate?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Al, did you know that in 2007 the OIG found that roughly 38% of the names on the terrorist watch list are inaccurate?
Does that mean that 62% of the names are accurate?
I don't know, does it? Why don't you answer my question instead of dodging with a nonsense question of your own?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why does your question matter and mine doesn't?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Does an "act of terrorism" need to promote your agenda, or just erode / disrupt the status quo of the society/community/group you target?

It at least needs to do the latter. This even, on its own, doesn't rise above the background static of shootings that are already occurring here for nay reason, so it's hard to see it as terroristic unless there's some way to connect it to a clear target that will be under continued threat.

WIthout a motive or idea of whose supposed to be scared by it, it's pretty routine by the standards that we've allowed to become the norm.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Think more “far reaching strategy” than “angry child lashing out”. You don’t see value in making the public of a democracy question if an attack is religious ideologists killing just to terrorize us in general or if it instead fits into a more general national problem of gun violence and mental illness?

Making “your enemy” see their own culture as a “the problem” rather than just being able to “blame religious extremists” for indefensible horrific acts? So yes, it all has the same final objective. To kill people and cause chaos and paranoia. While I may be going way out on a limb here with this theory, underestimating “the enemy” seems a particularly foolish thing to do.

So here we are, arguing over if they are REALLY terrorists or ALSO terrorists or just using terrorism as a mask for personal motives. We are shifting (or sharing) focus from anti-terror measures to gun control and questioning our society. (Pretend for a moment we’re neutral on our gun laws and think rather of how an enemy perceives us sacrificing any of “our rights”.)

Even more subtlety, it is now in our minds to question every shooting as possibly ISIS related. They just (potentially?) co-opted totally unrelated violence for their purposes. Modulate tactics to suit your “audience”. Too big picture? Too culturally savvy? Too smart?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Upset about not being named employee of the month is a potential reason. Ok. That's..just. Yeah. Wow. [DOH]

You're suggesting that there is a rational reason to shoot a bunch of people?

Nice dodge of the point, though, by arguing the example.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Upset about not being named employee of the month is a potential reason. Ok. That's..just. Yeah. Wow. [DOH]

You're suggesting that there is a rational reason to shoot a bunch of people?

Nice dodge of the point, though, by arguing the example.

That appears flippantly asked, but is a VERY important question. Twisting it a bit, are ALL incidents of "shooting a bunch of people" irrational?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, Unless you want to engage me in an honest debate I'm going to just assume I've made my point and move on.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
question our culture and society and seeking to improve it is something that we should always be doing as a matter of course. I don't reminding people to be conscientious as a very useful terror objective.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From an outsider, doesn't the political divide here make for a tempting target of disruption? Isn't the gun issue an obvious party line pressure point?

We are most dangerous as a country to outsiders when we are all in consensus.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lloyd Perna:
Al, Unless you want to engage me in an honest debate I'm going to just assume I've made my point and move on.

Your point is valid. I was just wondering why you focus on just one side of the question.

I think a rational discussion would have to leave aside the viewpoint that the 2A is sacrosanct and should never be abridged for any reason. Unless people are willing to do that the discussion isn't likely to go anywhere. What is your opinion about the inviolable nature of the 2A?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Does an "act of terrorism" need to promote your agenda, or just erode / disrupt the status quo of the society/community/group you target?

Can you say for certain that ambiguity of motive is not advantageous in some situations?

This is the "intentionality question". It also applies to some forms of speech, communication, and art/literature criticism.

If I say something meant to be insulting, and you don't take it as an insult, was it an insult?

If I say something that was NOT meant to be insulting and it WAS taken as an insult, is it an insult? Was it insulting?

If I write a song with the message of social revolution, and it was received by someone as a message of nostalgia, was either interpretation more correct?

If I commit a crime with the intent to terrorize, and nobody is terrorized, was it not terrorism?

And vice versa, if I commit a crime whose intent was not to terrorize, but did terrorize, was it terrorism?

I don't propose to know the right answers, but I do lean towards the philosophy that intent cannot be discounted. There is a wide gulf between homicide and manslaughter. 1st degree and negligent homicide. Attempted homicide and just an idiot who tried to kill me by putting pop rocks in sandwich and handing me a Dr. Pepper.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe it's as inviolable as any other amendment to the constitution.

There are already many limitations to it's applicability. More limits than virtually any other part of the constitution I would say.

[ December 04, 2015, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Lloyd Perna ]

Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant, we live in an age* when someone can state their intent and we question their mental soundness or debate whether or not they were duped into their action. Or if they are simply being dishonest about their stated intent.

Sometimes, that confusion is a desired goal, icing on the cake as it were or an irritating trait of an alien thinking enemy.

*this phrase indicates it somehow wasn't the case in previous ages which is probably quite silly...

[ December 04, 2015, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
From an outsider, doesn't the political divide here make for a tempting target of disruption? Isn't the gun issue an obvious party line pressure point?

We are most dangerous as a country to outsiders when we are all in consensus.

Consensus is not as necessary as decisiveness. Discussion and debate would be fine if after the question were put to a vote, the losing side would just suck it up and fall in for 2 to 4 years until the next vote. But this does not occur anymore.

We are in a 24/7 news/political cycle where the issues are never put to rest, but are incessantly argued and respect for authority and government officials have been eroded to non-existence. It won't end because politics is now a multi-billion dollar industry.

Discussing what the best next play would be during team meetings and practice is great. Arguing about it on the sidelines, or in the huddle, or right before the snap, is detrimental.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't propose to know the right answers, but I do lean towards the philosophy that intent cannot be discounted.
The result determines the nature of the act, intent determines the nature of responsibility.

If you accidentally hit someone with your car or intentionally hit someone with your car, the result is still the same; someone was hit by your car. But there's a real difference between how we handle the each scenario. Intent does matter, but a lack of intent does not mean a lack of responsibility for the results, just a different flavor of responsibility.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
From an outsider, doesn't the political divide here make for a tempting target of disruption? Isn't the gun issue an obvious party line pressure point?

We are most dangerous as a country to outsiders when we are all in consensus.

And to ourselves. And, in this particular situation, they benefit most from being able to cast us as dangerous, and we benefit most when we make it clear that we make a deliberate effort to help more than harm.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The result determines the nature of the act, intent determines the nature of responsibility.

If you accidentally hit someone with your car or intentionally hit someone with your car, the result is still the same; someone was hit by your car. But there's a real difference between how we handle the each scenario. Intent does matter, but a lack of intent does not mean a lack of responsibility for the results, just a different flavor of responsibility.

I generally agree with all above, but situations are always more complex. If a guy crawled under my car at night wearing black, laid against the wheel, and I then ran him over when I got into my car, it also changes the responsibility of the action. Same goes if a guy runs onto a shooting range in the middle of a live fire exercise. Responsibility is often a two way street that is attempted to be erased by victim-hood and victim culture.

To put it most clearly, going back a few years, if I wear an American flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo, not intending to insult anyone, but it does in fact insult someone, I think the nature of the act in itself needs to be looked at within itself, regardless of intentionality and how it is received. You could say I was a proponent of the New Criticism. But in reality I am something of an ecclectic and compatabilist.

If I intended to harm you, Pyr, by stabbing needles into a doll with your liking, and if in fact you saw this and felt intense pain in your crotch, am I guilty of assault?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But neither the right or the left of our contry is intent on harm. Both believe their proposals or defense of current conditions helps more than harms. We probably do much better governing when we accept this as true and pay attention to the other side when they point out the harms we dismiss or failed to notice.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1