Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Unless you can prove that she encouraged violence against Giffords, please do us a favor by accomplishing what no liberal in history has yet accomplished: shut the **** up.
"I don't make bombs, I make bombers."
-Hal Turner,
Recently jailed white supremacist talk show host and former Sean Hannity gal-pal.
"I don't make bombs, I make bombers."-Hal Turner,
Recently jailed white supremacist talk show host and former Sean Hannity gal-pal.
No, I don't fault Palin for this one at all. Despite my contempt for her neoconservative leanings and shilling for the the Republican party, I don't blame her for releasing the video. As soon as the shooting happened, moonbats the nation over started screaming about how she inspired Loughner to murder everyone and blah-blah-blah blood libel bullshit. People pushed her to "cover her ass" by attacking her.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
moonbats the nation over started screaming about how she inspired Loughner to murder everyone
A very small segment of the population that was silenced by people on both sides the moment we found out who the shooter was. Ever since then the question has been about how appropriate violent rhetoric (which Palin and the right unquestionably love) is as part of national politics.
If some idiots take comments made by anyone whether it be politicians, pop stars or whatever and get inspired enough to go about shooting folk, then this person is obviously unstable and needs help. Either that or brainwashed by the spooks to carry out the violent act.
As for Palin, I´m not an American so not really into US politics, but nevertheless it is beyond me how someone as thick as a scooby doo sandwich can get as far as she has in politics. She doesn´t even sound convincing plus she has a screeching sort of voice sounds like someones finger nails being scrachted along a blackboard.
For all the peacetalk, our society embraces aggression (we all like to show how tough we are), not just in political rhetoric, but in our games, how we do business, etc. Still, Palin is responsible only for her own cartoonish behavior. The final responsibility for the shooter's behavior rests with the shooter.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Another possibility is that the US has a lot of unstable maniacs amongst its citizens for some reason.
Nah, murder is just applying the second amendment. That's why we have the constituiton. In Europe they'll arrest you (that's newspeak for restrict your freedoms) if you and your buddies carry a loaded assault rifles to a political rally but in America it's okay.
“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
reagan
that said, palin should be scrutinized, as should the message being sent by the crosshairs poster and others like it. not everyone is as eductated--or sound-of-mind---as some here are, and unfortunately there are people who will see and read into such messages something they that not have been literally intended. it s fact that can't be ignored i don't think. bottomline--there were other, much better and more respectable ways to get her message across that would have prevented--if not this horrendous incident--any aspirsions that have fallen her way.
Originally posted by leonidas
“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
That quote would be easier to take seriously if it wasn't dredged up by people that wanted to use it as justification for not being accountable for their actions.
inimalist posted this in another thread:
irWwWKgkxbw&
And as I said before we need to get past binary thinking when we decide things. Imagine that I explicitly paid a man to shoot someone. That quote, as it is commonly used, lets me get off free, after all it was the hit man that was violent. In fact we can use that quote to get him off the hook too, a bit more personal security might have saved that person's life. The person who got shot wants to blame me or my hit man for his ill advised actions but people blindly championing "individual responsibility" cannot allow him to do that without rebuilding their philosophy.
(I should point out that, that last part isn't hyperbole. It really happened during the industrial revolution. It was only liberal progressives that produced the idea that when a factory worker was killed by dangerous machinery the designer or employer might be taken to task for it.)
Obviously though we can't think about stuff that way. It's insane. Multiple people can be at fault. Both the person who demands that a person murder and the person who murders. We don't have to pick one. They're both despicable.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And as I said before we need to get past binary thinking when we decide things.
Which is one reason to realize that the reaction to all this vitriolic talk is both garbage and fact. We have two plausible political parties, neither of which have a single qualm about happily gobbling up the votes of the nutjobs on both sides. For every person out there that thinks Sarah Palin's opinions and words motivated this guy, there's another that thinks that democrat ***** got what she deserved. That's the problem with the media, any media; once you say something, there are 300 million different ways to take it and 300 million people chomping at the bit to take it any way they want. And those 300 million people have two political parties to seperate themselves into
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, murder is just applying the second amendment. That's why we have the constituiton. In Europe they'll arrest you (that's newspeak for restrict your freedoms) if you and your buddies carry a loaded assault rifles to a political rally but in America it's okay.
Not a lot changed since the wild west then🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That quote would be easier to take seriously if it wasn't dredged up by people that wanted to use it as justification for not being accountable for their actions.
yeah, reagan may not be the most appropriate source for the quote, but the sentiment in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong and i think itapplies well to this particular situation.
[b]inimalist posted this in another thread:
irWwWKgkxbw&[quote]And as I said before we need to get past binary thinking when we decide things. Imagine that I explicitly paid a man to shoot someone. That quote, as it is commonly used, lets me get off free, after all it was the hit man that was violent.
nah, that IS binary. i don't think the quote overcomes common sense, sym. in that case the shooter was already predisposed to do violence and would be doing it regardless of WHO paid. the shooter IS clearly responsible for his actions though.
In fact we can use that quote to get him off the hook too, a bit more personal security might have saved that person's life. The person who got shot wants to blame me or my hit man for his ill advised actions but people blindly championing "individual responsibility" cannot allow him to do that without rebuilding their philosophy.
lol
i could give some fancy latin name for this type of thinking but you and i both know the sentiment at the heart. i'm not even saying YOU'RE saying it's inherently wrong, but viewing that quote as you have is analogous to viewing anything (a gun for instance) as being inherently wrong. the guote is a tool, like the gun, to be used or misused. that quote however i think CAN be interpretted in a different way. to totally discard it swings the pendulum the other way and seemingly ABSOLVES the individual from blame and makes society alone the culprit. so the shooter should go free and the person who paid the shooter be solely responsible?
binary thinking can work both ways.
(I should point out that, that last part isn't hyperbole. It really happened during the industrial revolution. It was only liberal progressives that produced the idea that when a factory worker was killed by dangerous machinery the designer or employer might be taken to task for it.)
interesting. never saw that before.
Obviously though we can't think about stuff that way. It's insane. Multiple people can be at fault. Both the person who demands that a person murder and the person who murders. We don't have to pick one. They're both despicable.
of course. we both agree clearly on that. i do think that in north american society though, in a general sense, individual responsibility is something that is eshewed by more and more people, and is something that deserves some attention. s'only reason i posted that quote. good discussion though and fair points raised by you. 🙂
Originally posted by leonidas
nah, that IS binary. i don't think the quote overcomes common sense, sym. in that case the shooter was already predisposed to do violence and would be doing it regardless of WHO paid. the shooter IS clearly responsible for his actions though.
Show me two people (anywhere, not just on KMC) who have said that Laughner should not be punished for his actions.
Originally posted by leonidas
i could give some fancy latin name for this type of thinking but you and i both know the sentiment at the heart. i'm not even saying YOU'RE saying it's inherently wrong, but viewing that quote as you have is analogous to viewing anything (a gun for instance) as being inherently wrong. the guote is a tool, like the gun, to be used or misused. that quote however i think CAN be interpretted in a different way. to totally discard it swings the pendulum the other way and seemingly ABSOLVES the individual from blame and makes society alone the culprit. so the shooter should go free and the person who paid the shooter be solely responsible?
You've fallen into exactly the kind of thinking I'm trying to highlight.
We don't have to pick between the person who pays and the person who kills. If I hire a man to murder someone both I and the murderer need to be punished. It is insane to believe that one of us should go free because the other is arbitrarily decided to be worse.
We don't have to pick between society being at fault and Laughner being at fault. This is not a binary issue. We don't have to choose between him being a monster and him being innocent. He can be crazy and do something terrible, we still get to remove him from society.
That quote and the way Conservatives are trying to is a way of pushing responsibility for things onto other people. It betrays the absurd belief hidden at the core of "classical liberalism" that nothing you do has an effect on the world unless you want it to.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Show me two people (anywhere, not just on KMC) who have said that Laughner should not be punished for his actions.
i would hope there would be no one..... not sure why you're asking. methinks you may have misunderstood my post....
You've fallen into exactly the kind of thinking I'm trying to highlight.
huh? I'M not thinking it. you were saying the quote was a form of binary thinking. i'm saying that that perhaps the literal definition of it could be seen that way, but the 'spirit' of the quote is a warning NOT to absolve an individual. and there IS always a choice, even in the case of your shooter. but of course both need to be punished. i wasn't suggesting anything else.
[/b]We don't have to pick between the person who pays and the person who kills. If I hire a man to murder someone both I and the murderer need to be punished. It is insane to believe that one of us should go free because the other is arbitrarily decided to be worse.[/b]
of course both should be punished. i was merely playing devil's advocate and saying that binary thinking is a two-way street. i also said right off that the quote we're talking about should in no way overcome common sense but that it may serve as a reminder at times that individuals are responsible for their actions--until most circumstances. blaming posters with cross-hairs for the shooting (which some are trying to say) is eshewing the individual's responsibility for his actions.
We don't have to pick between society being at fault and Laughner being at fault. This is not a binary issue. We don't have to choose between him being a monster and him being innocent. He can be crazy and do something terrible, we still get to remove him from society.
yep. if he IS crazy this is a special issue and a rare case where he is NOT responsible, i agree.
That quote and the way Conservatives are trying to is a way of pushing responsibility for things onto other people.
in some cases that is justified if others are looking for excuses. the litigiousness of north american society is one big indicator that people ARE looking for others to blame. someone falls on the sidewalk and they blame the homeowner for not calling the city to repair a small crack. burn your mouth on coffee, sue mcdonald's for making it too hot. i think we agree on everything here. again, seems you may have misunderstood me post.
It betrays the absurd belief hidden at the core of "classical liberalism" that nothing you do has an effect on the world unless you want it to.
common sense betrays the absurdness of that concept.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Show me two people (anywhere, not just on KMC) who have said that Laughner should not be punished for his actions.
According to Rush Limbaugh, the entire Democrat Party, including President Obama, AND the sheriff who arrested him are both gunning for his innocence and release. The dumb **** really said it -look it up.
Originally posted by leonidas
huh? I'M not thinking it. you were saying the quote was a form of binary thinking. i'm saying that that perhaps the literal definition of it could be seen that way, but the 'spirit' of the quote is a warning NOT to absolve an individual. and there IS always a choice, even in the case of your shooter. but of course both need to be punished. i wasn't suggesting anything else.of course both should be punished. i was merely playing devil's advocate and saying that binary thinking is a two-way street. i also said right off that the quote we're talking about should in no way overcome common sense but that it may serve as a reminder at times that individuals are responsible for their actions--until most circumstances.
I don't see why you're saying that "binary thinking is a two way street". My whole point is that we shouldn't be on that damned street in the first place, not that we should go to one end or the other.
Originally posted by leonidas
common sense betrays the absurdness of that concept.
Yes, which is why I don't ascribe to classical liberalism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see why you're saying that "binary thinking is a two way street". My whole point is that we shouldn't be on that damned street in the first place, not that we should go to one end or the other.
It's such an uphill battle to illuminate those who cant, won't or don't understand, that it's almost not worth the time.
Last night I got into an hour long argument with my ultra conservative, the President is a muslim not born in this country, Sarah Palin is beyond reproach, Mother. We were watching Bill Maher when I stopped by to drop off a green pepper, and she intentionally ignores what anyone has to say that doesn't agree with her party. When Elizabeth Warren said that the banks and credit card companies had been shooting and skinning consumers, my mother flipped out about why no one was calling her sentiments responsible for the kind of second ammendment solutions that went into Gifford getting a bullet to the brain. The intentional disconnect is over whelming.