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 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: San Bernadino attack
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we should find out more about the time and location where the post was made. It can't have been while she was inside shooting, so it must have been made either just before or just after.
They're saying it was posted just before the attack.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  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 
SP, thanks for the clarifications.
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 Lloyd Perna:
I believe [2A is] 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.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Cherry in another thread:
quote:
Cherry, Syed was born and raised in the US. There were no signs of radicalization on his part. The only potential outlier that has been reported was amassing a fairly impressive stockpile of weapons, including assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo. Why would anyone who lives in a condo, but never goes hunting or to a shooting range do that?

Isn't that kind of activity something we should keep an eye on?


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 
whether that something that we should keep an eye on or not, depends on the legal definition of the term "assault rifle"

Also depends on who you mean by "we.". With the press wing of leftoterrorism publishing the names and addresses of gun owners, government oversight seems likely to diminish safety and liberty.

Besides, some of us remember how some control types sputtered blathered obfuscated and accused when asked to show statistical evidence that gun tracking and control laws had ever succeeded anywhere at reducing violence.

[ December 06, 2015, 09:07 AM: 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:
whether that something that we should keep an eye on or not, depends on the legal definition of the term "assault rifle"

Also depends on who you mean by "we.".

Spoken like a lawyer. Is == is? No, one is capitalized.
quote:
Besides, some of us remember how y'all sputtered blathered obfuscated and accused when asked to show statistical evidence that gun tracking and control laws had ever succeeded anywhere at reducing violence.
The do-nothing strategy. There have been over 350 mass gun attacks by home grown shooters so far this year alone. Do-nothing wins again. We should have a national mandate that people say "do nothing" after every time they hear about somebody who just shot 3, 4, 5, 6...30...50...people so that nobody will be tempted to say otherwise.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address, broadcast a day after the F.B.I. declared that it was treating the massacre as an act of terror. “And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years — the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.”
This is insanity.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 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 
Home grown terrorism has been a far greater problem than terrorism on US soil by immigrants or visitors. How would you address the problem?
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:
quote:
whether that something that we should keep an eye on or not, depends on the legal definition of the term "assault rifle"

Also depends on who you mean by "we.".

Spoken like a lawyer. Is == is? No, one is capitalized. [.
Spiked like an obfuscating bureaucrat. I made clear what my specific concern was and you edited it out to make a cheap shot.

Which is just one of the many things you Al Wessex have said and done on this forum that make me feel like you hate middle America more than you fear ISIS.

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 
We is a pronoun. Could mean you and I. Could mean you and DAESH.
"Is",is a verb. Asking who you are referring to by we, is not is ising.

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:
Which is just one of the many things you Al Wessex have said and done on this forum that make me feel like you hate middle America more than you fear ISIS.
That sort of insult is just meretricious garbage. Honestly, all the people who quibble with "we" and the technical definition of what weapon was used are just ducking the issue. You whine and complain that people who want tighter gun laws or a call to action are wasting their breath, but you offer nothing yourself. You and Rafi G have joined forces to deflect any suggestions that involve actually *doing* something.

It's cowardly of you. I expect it from Rafi G, because he only ever attacks and insults. It's sad that you're taking on some of his tactics.

Only a coward refuses to confront a problem like this.

Man up, dude. People are getting killed right and left. What should we *do* about it?

Ai: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ December 06, 2015, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CNN's legal analyst weighs in on the media ransack of the home:
quote:
I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected with these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place; you’ve got shredded documents…You have passports, you’ve got drivers’ licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene…I am so shocked, I cannot believe it.
All that and the FBI claims the investigation there was done - local sherif says it was not cleared though.

So what's most likely here? Did the FBI, arguably the premiere law enforcement agency in the world, just so rush through this that they failed to check for fingerprints or review passports and other ID's? You know, investigation 101 stuff. Do we really believe the DOJ and FBI is that incompetent? Is this just a tragic comedy of incompetence from DHS all the way through?

Incredibly, that is the best case scenario.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 
"That sort of insult is just meretricious garbage"

No. Your clicheed riff about how a lawyer was garbage. Since your man Clinton got disbarred from the practice of law for that stunt.


What I said wasn't an insult or a stunt. It's a reasonable description of what you say on this forum and how you say it. You literally speak on a day to day basis as if our views are a greater threat than ISIS. Ergo you seem to hate us more than you fear ISIS. If you want me to lay out my evidence, a list of quotes from you that give that impression, then start a thread and I will fill in the gaps. But if you don't want to know why I believe that, the just keep playing the martyr as usual and we can change the subject.

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 
Go ahead, but for the sake of fairness you should include the context.
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 
"People are getting killed right and left. What should we *do* about it?"

If you weren't editing and posturing, you could look at the measures I suggested in between the phrases you took out of context in order to pretend I suggested taking no action.

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 
Cross posted. I will put those quotes together w context and links if I can. I don't want to demonize you. You are not the only one that gives me that impression. here are some of the measures I suggested:

"Better nothing than something counterproductive. But better yet take measures that reduce the culture of violence. Attack the roots of violence. Increase prosperity. Shrink the geography of desperation and isolation"

Broken windows measures Giuliani took as mayor. Revive the middle class and celebrate middle class morality, eg marriage, fatherhood. Promote service. Give teens opportunities to work and serve. Expand cheap public transport.

[ December 06, 2015, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected with these two.
They don't need fingerprint dust anymore - they can use 'alternate light source' techniques which doesn't risk destroying or contaminating the print (unlike the more antiquated dusting). This suggests that the 'expert' interviewed isn't aware of modern (past 10+ years) crime scene technology.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It doesn't really suggest that, you infer that. Big difference.

What indicates the FBI did that in the 48 hours prior to the media ransacking? We can be pretty sure they did not use the traditional dust method, there's no reason to believe they did the light method either. It hadn't been 48 hours since the event, all that documentation and every other evidence of their social and personal network had not been taken for evidence. Who knows what the FBI did or didn't do at this point.

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 
It's now coming out that Farook told his father he was a supporter of ISIS, shared Al Baghdadi's ideology and the creation of the Islamic State. His father described him as "obsessed".

His father, knowing he was a obsessed radical did nothing. What are the odds that the only person obsessed Farook told all this to was his father? They also did nothing.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It suggests either the 'expert' didn't know, or was trying to deliberately mislead the public. Either way, the experts trustworthiness is in question.

quote:
What indicates the FBI did that in the 48 hours prior to the media ransacking? We can be pretty sure they did not use the traditional dust method, there's no reason to believe they did the light method either. It hadn't been 48 hours since the event, all that documentation and every other evidence of their social and personal network had not been taken for evidence.
They had handed the scene back to the landlord. Which suggests that they had processed the scene.

A high priority case can take only a couple of hours to process a scene, so it would be unsurprising for them to have processed the scene and be gone long before the 48 hour window ended.

As noted in the article they are required to turn the scene back over if it isn't a crime scene (which it isn't). If you don't like it, write your legislature - but then you end up with people being denied use of their property indefinitely when there is a low value of additional evidence. It is a tradeoff.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sherrifs department says the scene had not been cleared. There was a massive amount of relevant documentation there regarding these terrorists. This scene was not fully proceed, just as the sherif says. There is no way.

You can guess whatever you want about the expert, doesn't matter, it's meaningless and uninformed guessing.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It wasn't a guess - it was a obvious inference based on knowledge that the expert should have had, but either failed to act on or didn't have.

Also it was not the Sheriff who said it was not cleared, it was Deputy Olivia Bozek and she had no authority over the matter and was not in a position to determine whether or not it was cleared. The FBI were in charge at the time and had no requirement to report to the deputy.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You seem to think the investigation has been completed. It has not.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
As noted in the article they are required to turn the scene back over if it isn't a crime scene (which it isn't). If you don't like it, write your legislature - but then you end up with people being denied use of their property indefinitely when there is a low value of additional evidence. It is a tradeoff.

I'm pretty sure it can't be that simple. In a terrorism case there is no due process even for human suspects. I very much doubt that the FBI or Homeland has to do anything if they feel there is more to be done with the scene. Now, if you're correct that the scene had been entirely processed already then the point about having to clear out would be moot, since they'd not need to do otherwise. Do you think it sounds reasonable to allow civilian children to play in a townhouse owned by terrorists one day after you first explored and catalogued the place? Did they really examine every floor board in that time, take the paint off the walls looking for safes or hidden panels, and collect every relevant document that might have explained the process of their radicalization? I just can't see how. I think the FBI could have afforded to pay a little rent to keep the place under wraps for a few weeks in what was perhaps the first ISIS-related terrorism case in America ever.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

quote:
Do you think it sounds reasonable to allow civilian children to play in a townhouse owned by terrorists one day after you first explored and catalogued the place?
the FBI didn't 'allow' any of that. They turned it over to the landlord and then had no further responsibility or interest. It appears either the landlord then let people in, or people trespassed.

quote:
Did they really examine every floor board in that time, take the paint off the walls looking for safes or hidden panels, and collect every relevant document that might have explained the process of their radicalization?
You can a quite thorough examination for anything hidden in about 10-20 minutes with the proper equipment (infrared, sonar, UV, radar) - there isn't any need for the rather ancient and labor intensive methods.

Any documents can also be completely digitized at multiple frequencies (again infrared, UV, visible) in a couple of hours.

These are not things that take very much time at all to do if you have the proper equipment.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A big question to ask is what happens as they interview others connected to Farook and Malik? New information comes up that makes something previously seeming irrelevant a vital piece of evidence. That evidence is now tainted.

This idea of a thorough check having been done in 20 minutes is, frankly, the result of watching too much tv.

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 
1. They botched a jurisdictional hand-off and are trying to cover their asses.
2. Someone decided there was value in releasing the scene into the public record that fast.

Arguing that they were DONE, is one of the most ridiculous point I've seen argued here. And we argue some ridiculous **** from time to time.

Correction: Arguing that the investigation was to a point where the integrity of the scene was no longer relevant is ridiculous. I don't want to suggest that one agency handing off to another and stepping back is ridiculous.

[ December 07, 2015, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

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:
This is some fine hair-splitting, but while the positive affirmation in your second clause is true, the negative statement in the first clause isn't actually correct. Circumstantial evidence isn't direct evidence of a fact, because circumstantial evidence requires an inference. But the circumstantial evidence is nonetheless evidence that the motive is what it appears to be--it simply isn't sufficient to establish a motive as a "fact," as it requires inferential thinking.
The circumstantial evidence points to them being radicalized. But the nature of the situation itself provides too many confounding factors to distinguish whether terror was actually their intent here, or if being radicalized means that they were more willing to apply violence to any issue without a specific intent to cause terror. Certainly the nature of the target means that there was very little direct generation of terror- It's within bounds of the current normal level of gun violence in hte US and there was nothing about the target itself that put people similar to it in any way in a position where they felt more at risk.

As you yourself have noted, there's too much involved to fully sort out how much of this was workplace violence and how much was part of an actual, intentional campaign to scare people. But I don't' think affiliation with ISIS is enough to make a reasonable case for the latter. You actualyl need evidence of the overall campaign- a pattern of attacks or plans for other, related attacks, to meet that bar. Otherwise it lacks the one distinctive element that distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violent crime, namely that the targeted group will continue to be targeted until they fall into line with the will of the attackers.

Right now the people sensationalizing the issue are contributing to that feeling far more than the attack itself did.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
1. They botched a jurisdictional hand-off and are trying to cover their asses.
2. Someone decided there was value in releasing the scene into the public record that fast.

Arguing that they were DONE, is one of the most ridiculous point I've seen argued here. And we argue some ridiculous **** from time to time.

Correction: Arguing that the investigation was to a point where the integrity of the scene was no longer relevant is ridiculous. I don't want to suggest that one agency handing off to another and stepping back is ridiculous.

Exactly. But, if 2 is true, and I believe there's a good chance that it is, then is 1 accidental?
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 
Pyrtolin, are you really arguing that these weren't scary enough to be considered REAL terrorists activity, because "normal" mass shootings just aren't terrifying enough to be a legitimate radical ideology brand tactic?

[ December 07, 2015, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
Rafi, If 1 is true, then 2 is irrelevant. If 2 is true, it wasn't "botched" it was orchestrated.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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:
Cherry, Syed was born and raised in the US. There were no signs of radicalization on his part.
Other than him saying or suggesting as much to his father.
quote:
The only potential outlier that has been reported was amassing a fairly impressive stockpile of weapons, including assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Weapons that may have been purchased by a neighbor it seems.
quote:
Why would anyone who lives in a condo, but never goes hunting or to a shooting range do that?
They have imagined a scenario where having these items could protect them, and possibly friends and families. No matter how unlikely that scenario, the media takes great pains to remind us that violence and the threat of violence is right around the corner. It may be positively mundane compared to the imagined scenario “prepped” for, but the perceived rationalness of the more mundane and likely scenario helps the prepper not feel like a fruit loop.

No, a zombie attack isn’t REALLY going to happen, but I can totally stop a home invasion. No the Chinese aren’t REALLY going to invade by land but if there is a natural disaster I could keep looters away. A lot of us who enjoy the “fall of civilization” sci-fi genre and the horror subset of “zombie apocalypse” do the mental exercise of, “how would I fare in this situation?” Then there are people who think, “Wow, I need to get ready for that right now!”

Even going this far, it’s mostly harmless. This seems strange, I mean, obviously this isn’t someone collecting stamps or writing Lord of the Rings fan fiction. They are collecting lethal weapons! As much as some people categorize mass shootings as an epidemic, I think the numbers make it clear that almost all the people who “hoard” weapons beyond those needed for hunting, defending your home or person, or for competitive shooting, are not waiting for a “triggering bad day” to turn them into the next mass shooter. Unless that mass is zombies, aliens or… communists come to invade us. Then all bets are off.

Our fiction glorifies this behavior that terrifies us in reality. The “hero” in a fallen society, gunning down threat with ruthless precision while somehow retaining their humanity is the “terrorist” or “madman” when placed in our normal everyday lives.


quote:
Isn't that kind of activity something we should keep an eye on?
Yes. But how do you find them? How do you encourage friends and family to come forward? How do you decide if that legal weapon you just sold legally is not going to be given to a third party? How do you handle a call from a sibling or parent or acquaintance who’s belief is anyone who owns a gun is a murderer just waiting for opportunity? How many tiers do we need on our watch lists? How much manpower and money do we devote to it? Do we change our very society to force people to be more transparent in their activities to make the others feel safe? Not BE safe mind you, just feel safer.

Our law enforcement is being asked to do the near impossible. At the same time, they already overstepped (or trampled) on our expectation of privacy. We do not TRUST them. If you are a minority you trust them even less. We see them as a bogyman who could almost randomly do us harm if only we are unlucky. In that environment, how do we “keep an eye on” that type of activity?

Do we ban all non-practical guns? Do we ban all toy guns and “fantasy gun violence” in our media? Do we ban “fall of civilization” genre fiction because it allows for further escapism by those who society should already be trying to bring back into a more “healthy” social fold? Should we just ban all guns and address the means to act instead of the motivating forces?

AI, you called it cowardly to fail to act. The problem is that ANY solution, as the “do nothing” crowd sees it, tends to be one of these three.
1. Impractical to enforce. (gun storage laws)
2. Would have little to no meaningful result. (placebo public relation law such as targeting subsets of guns based upon cosmetics rather than function)
3. Rational, but vulnerable to abuse once enacted or abuse by being applied / enforced unevenly.

Of those, only number 3 tends to gain any traction. The proliferation of items 1 and 2 tend to build the mistrust exhibited in number 3. I suppose there is a number 4 but that involves a monumental change to our popular culture and would take years to achieve and require a level of censorship and intentional molding of our nation’s subconscious I don’t think anyone SHOULD be comfortable with.

That’s all I got for my rambling at present. Even this probably deserved to be a separate discussion…

[ December 07, 2015, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

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 Grant:
It applies because it goes towards the question regarding shared responsibility for the results of an occurrence. The original example was a driver being responsible for hitting a pedestrian, regardless of the intent of the driver. I pointed out that the responsibility must be shared when the pedestrian puts themselves in danger, knowingly or unknowingly. You agreed:

Right, but in the cases we're discussing, we're not talking about people choosing to put themselves in harms way, we're talking about people who have no choice but to be in harms way in order to live a normal live. I mean, you could suggest that immigrant that don't want to be derided should leave the country or kids that don't want to be intimidated should stay home from school, people who don't want to be hit by cars should just stay in their homes, people who don't want to be stereotyped as terrorists shouldn't be Muslims, but that's absurd; they should have a reasonable expectation of mutual respect such taht they can go about their daily life without coming under threat.

quote:
If a man runs into traffic on a freeway in Dallas, he will probably share the bulk of responsibility for being hit by a car. But to say that a woman places herself in danger by walking alone down a dark alley after midnight is a crime against women.

To me, the difference lies in intent, and goes to my belief that intent is a primary driver of responsibility. A rapist intends to rape. A person hitting a man running on the freeway probably did not intend to hit him.

The difference lies in expected environments. A busy highway is not a place for pedestrians. Is that biased against pedestrians? Sure, but it's a reasonable tradeoff in order to allow the highway to serve its intended purpose. And all pedestrians, which are not, in and of themselves a class that has suffered from historical discrimination, are affected equally. (The question becomes interesting if you switch to law abiding bicyclists, who often have room to point out that many drivers often do go out of their way to intimidate them and put them at risk.)

City sidewalks and even allies, unless actively closed for some reason, at any time should be places for pedestrians. Singling out one class of pedestrians and saying "You should not go on these at this time" based on who you are amounts to a campaign of intimidation against that class. Blaming them, instead of the people who cause the problems that create the distinction, for that action amounts to enforcing that discriminatory difference, and trying to equate them to someone running out in traffic suggests that the bias against them is normal and should be respected instead of resolved.

quote:
This would seem to argue that there is no such thing as an incorrect belief. That all feelings and reactions are natural and correct, instead of the idea that some beliefs, some feelings, and some reactions are incorrect, unhealthy, and not natural. Reaction and result cannot be primary. Intent and the nature of the action itself much be.
You're conflating belief and feeling/reaction here. They're not equivalent.

What someone feels is what they feel. The overall affects things have on people are factual effects. They're not beliefs. There can be unexpected or even outright unproductive results, but suggesting that someone is wrong about how they feels about something because it's not right to believe they were affected that way is absurdly denigrating to them.

What people feel is what they feel, and unless you've got good evidence that they're being dishonest and manipulative, you have to take their word for it and either respect it or choose to disregard it. They can control how they act on that feeling or deal with that feeling, sure, but they cannot control the feeling itself.

quote:
I don't think that you are correct in this, Pyr. PTSD is treated by exposure and cognitive behavior therapy. You cannot treat it by creating safe spaces, because life is not a safe space. You treat by exposing to the triggers and showing that the triggers are not connected directly to the initial trauma. If a PTSD patient is triggered by fireworks, a good way to get them over that trigger is to expose them to fireworks and watching children play and having fun.
In a manner that they control, exposing themselves to an extent that they feel secure and ending the exposure when the feel they're at their limit.

Not by having kids randomly and unexpectedly set fireworks off near them in an uncontrolled environment.

you're wrongly implying that safe environments mean total isolation and then confusing controlled exposure within safe frameworks with random, uncontrolled exposures.

You don't randomly toss people with broken legs in front of charging bulls till they get over it,. You create a safe environment for the bone to heal, then use physical therapy to apply controlled amounts of exposure to pressure on it to get the best results. The mental process is no different.

quote:
I don't think we are necessarily opposed on this because I agree that initial treatment has to take place in a therapist's office. There the exposure can be more controlled, but to call it a "safe space" may be incorrect, since the purpose is still to expose to the trigger. In this case, the purpose of such a space is self limiting. It's purpose is to end it's need.
It's correct to call taht a "safe space", because that's the term for it. your misunderstanding of what is meant by the term does not make the term wrong.

quote:
I believe that what you are suggesting places too much of a burden on society to make people comfortable. I believe the primary burden must be on the individual rather than society.
That flies in the face of the fundamental principles behind etiquette and civilized behavior. Respect and etiquette are rooted in making just that effort, and in the case of the latter in a visible demonstration of the fact taht you're putting effort into ensuring the comfort of others.

quote:
Because my reaction to a film was generally unfounded and unhealthy, I don't believe that people around me are obliged to cater to my reactions.
That you personally excuse inconsiderate behavoir in others does not make the behavior any less inconsiderate.

quote:
A society that you describes is one that must constantly walk on eggshells so as not to offend, and erases the primacy of intent and nature of action.
A society that selfishly equates showing respect with "waling on eggshells" is one taht constantly tears itself apart and promotes abusive cycles of behavior because it places personal convenience over mutual support.

quote:
The problem is Pyr, that individuals are not obliged by law to be polite.
That's not a problem, politeness and respect would lose all functional meaning if they were legally enforced.


quote:
People have the freedom to be ******** and you cannot have a healthy society unless people are able to handle their existence.
Sure. The problem isn't the freedom to do so. It's doing so, but trying to redefine it as proper and respectful behavior instead of acknowledging and owning the fact taht you are being an ******** if you chose to continue acting that way once it's been pointed out to you.

quote:
You can't outlaw being a jerk, because we'll all end up under arrest.
And I'll repeat again my wonder at people's obsession with making things illegal just because they don't like them or feel that they're improper. Why would someone want to make being a jerk illegal rather than simply point out when others are being a jerk so that the actor can choose to reform or to own their lack of consideration?

[ December 07, 2015, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

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.:
Pyrtolin, are you really arguing that these weren't scary enough to be considered REAL terrorists activity, because "normal" mass shootings just aren't terrifying enough to be a legitimate radical ideology brand tactic?

That's the bare minimum for successful terrorism, isn't it? That it actually drives reacting in a manner based on fear of attacks? IF there's no reaction, then it's not exactly successful terrorism, is it?

I mean, at teh other end, if you can show an planned intent to cause terror that simply failed, that's one thing, but if the only fear from the attacks is being caused by people preaching fear, then it seems like it didn't exactly met taht goal.

It's indicative of other, more fundamental issues, to be sure. But without terror- without fear of the instigators of the act- what does terrorism have left going for it?

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 
You are suggesting that one fear is being lost in the background noise of another fear. It doesn't stop being terrifying.

I think you have a good point in there, but you missed the mark a bit.

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 D.W.:
You are suggesting that one fear is being lost in the background noise of another fear. It doesn't stop being terrifying.

I think you have a good point in there, but you missed the mark a bit.

I'd be more convinced that there was a fear there if more people were reacting to it, instead of just hand waving it away and acting like there's nothing practical that can be done.

With mass shootings, we're still mostly at the point where we're content to let politicians argue about it and go about our daily lives as if they were things that happen to other people.

There's definitely some liberal fear mongering over it, but it doesn't seems to have much traction overall.

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 
How do you contrast that with say, a domestic "self-radicalized" group who decides to bomb a public event?

Do you really see a difference in the cries to "do something" between those reacting to each situation?

Well, a difference beyond having a more clearly defined group to project our fears of subsequent attacks on; fairly or not.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the nature of the situation itself provides too many confounding factors to distinguish whether terror was actually their intent here, or if being radicalized means that they were more willing to apply violence to any issue without a specific intent to cause terror.
I think rather that intent is not necessarily a singular thing. I think it's clear that a specific intent in this event was terroristic--as in, it was apparently motivated by subscription to an organized ideology/political movement--but that doesn't preclude the existence of additional complexity to the overall intent/motivation.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Farook was targeting personal acquaintances due to a history of personal conflict, but I think it's also relatively clear that the nature of the personal conflict was likely related to the disparagement of Farook's religion, and that his response was likely guided by a literal interpretation of ideological material which prescribes a specific political response of violence against individuals who denigrate said ideology.

This is loaded with assumptions, of course, but it seems to me to be a more reasonable narrative than one which insists that no sensible inferences can be made regarding why the perpetrators acted as they did...

[ December 07, 2015, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW:
quote:
They're saying it was posted just before the attack.
Now they're saying that it was posted just after the attacks...
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
1. They botched a jurisdictional hand-off and are trying to cover their asses.
2. Someone decided there was value in releasing the scene into the public record that fast.

Arguing that they were DONE, is one of the most ridiculous point I've seen argued here. And we argue some ridiculous **** from time to time.

Correction: Arguing that the investigation was to a point where the integrity of the scene was no longer relevant is ridiculous. I don't want to suggest that one agency handing off to another and stepping back is ridiculous.

Case in point:
quote:
Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.
Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA's sisters' wing.

The affiliation was not found by the FBI but during the media ransack.

So yeah defenders of this, tell me again how the FBI is doing and what a complete job has been done.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Rafi, If 1 is true, then 2 is irrelevant. If 2 is true, it wasn't "botched" it was orchestrated.

Given the training, experience and professionalism of the FBI, which one is most likely?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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