It really isn't. Blaming others instead of blaming a perpetrator is naive.
Advertisement
by Desperate Measures » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:27 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:29 pm
The Archiepelago wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
They've been talking about at least one other person of interest, although I wasn't aware that they'd actually gone so far as to suggest conspiracy.
Yeah they're also ,as I'm sure other have heard, blaming the tea party, conservatives and Sarah palin. and also talk radio
by Grave_n_idle » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:30 pm
by The Archiepelago » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:34 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:The Archiepelago wrote:
I just think of it as absolutley naive to try blaming others for what someone did. idk if naive would be the choice wrd but I couldn't think of anything else. Maybe ignorant.
So, wait. Are you saying that we shouldn't let this guy go and that we shouldn't arrest Sarah Palin, instead? That's crazy talk.
by The Archiepelago » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:35 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:The Archiepelago wrote:
Yeah they're also ,as I'm sure other have heard, blaming the tea party, conservatives and Sarah palin. and also talk radio
'They'?
As i mentioned, Giffords, herself, warned of potential harm should the constant vitriol triumph. Maybe those who employed it do have some responsibility to accept for what they have said.
It might be interesting to see - if the assailant were to admit to being directly inspired by Palin (for example) if 'depraved heart' could be made to stick. Not sure what Arizona's actual position is on 'depraved heart'...
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:35 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by The Archiepelago » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:48 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:53 pm
Greater Americania wrote:Farnhamia wrote:She was in favor of tougher border security, though.
Which was exactly what I was referring to. She was in favor increasing border enforcement and of securing the border, something a leftist which this individual very well may have been, would have an intrinsic knee-jerk reaction to. Such a stance could very well have been motivation for attacking her and those around her yesterday. Given the rise of leftist extremism all across the Western world, this would only add on to the growing trend.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Marsini » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:54 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:The Archiepelago wrote:
Yeah they're also ,as I'm sure other have heard, blaming the tea party, conservatives and Sarah palin. and also talk radio
'They'?
As i mentioned, Giffords, herself, warned of potential harm should the constant vitriol triumph. Maybe those who employed it do have some responsibility to accept for what they have said.
It might be interesting to see - if the assailant were to admit to being directly inspired by Palin (for example) if 'depraved heart' could be made to stick. Not sure what Arizona's actual position is on 'depraved heart'...
by -Bederich- » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:55 pm
by Marsini » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:56 pm
Wikkiwallana wrote:Greater Americania wrote:
Which was exactly what I was referring to. She was in favor increasing border enforcement and of securing the border, something a leftist which this individual very well may have been, would have an intrinsic knee-jerk reaction to. Such a stance could very well have been motivation for attacking her and those around her yesterday. Given the rise of leftist extremism all across the Western world, this would only add on to the growing trend.
This strikes me less as of a knee-jerk reaction and more of a premeditated assault. Also, it saddens me that you think so little of others based solely on their political leanings that you think their first response is automatic violence.
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:57 pm
Greater Americania wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Put those goal posts back. You shot off your mouth and got caught. Be a man and admit it.
Admit to what, exactly? It even discusses her stances in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants crossing the border in the OP's NPR article. You're just voluntarily choosing to ignore the distinct possibility that this Congresswoman and members of her entourage, including a innocent nine year old girl were slaughtered by a leftist.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Grave_n_idle » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:00 pm
Marsini wrote:However, until then you should have nothing to say other than the shit should stop.
Marsini wrote:I agree the Tea Party should stop using military rhetoric, the extremist Liberals should stop threatening to kill presidents with whom they disagree,
Marsini wrote:My point is that you cannot hold them morally responsible because they did not directly advocate it.
by Marsini » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:10 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Marsini wrote:However, until then you should have nothing to say other than the shit should stop.
That's certainly your opinion. I have been saying the shit should stop. I've also said that - until something suggests otherwise - each eprson is responsible for their own actions, if you care to read the thread.
That doesn't mean I can't also say that this kind of violence might well have some root in the militant rhetoric we've been hearing.Marsini wrote:I agree the Tea Party should stop using military rhetoric, the extremist Liberals should stop threatening to kill presidents with whom they disagree,
I'm not talking about extremists and the Tea Party, really - I'm talking about 'mainstream' politicians like Bachmann and Palin who have made threats of violence an apparently acceptable part of their platform.Marsini wrote:My point is that you cannot hold them morally responsible because they did not directly advocate it.
Horseshit. If I tell you to kill yourself, and you do - I have some 'moral responsibility' even if I can't be shown to have a legal one.
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:10 pm
Grandlife wrote:Why should the average person give a shit? 99 percent of people didn't know she existed before she got shot. It's not as if the patrisan hate speech will go down, or that a Federal gun control law will go into effect. So why even care? Nothing will change. So a few people died? Big fucking deal people die every second.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Farnhamia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:13 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:17 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Muravyets » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:20 pm
Marsini wrote:Wikkiwallana wrote:As do I.
Is there any proof that this was motivated by the Tea Party? Until then, they can state that your claims are idle speculation. Likewise, the Republican Party hasn't been issuing a "call to arms" or refering to weapons at all- the Tea Party makes indirect, dumbass statements. It isn't a game, which is why I am curious that people are attempting to score political points on this tragedy. The first remarks were mostly it was the Tea Party, gun control, and radical Communists. I have a problem with the majority of this thread. I want evidence. I want justice. However, we must wait. Tossing around useless, unvalidated claims does nothing.
Gauthier wrote:
They're hiding behind the Explicit Proof Defense just like anti-choicers do. As long as they don't blatantly call for murder or assassination in their campaigns, they feel perfectly fine sleeping over the harm they encourage and incite through their rhetoric.
by Coccygia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:22 pm
Muravyets wrote:-Bederich- wrote:
It was most likely not a conspiracy, the suspected shooter is said to be mentally unstable.
It should be pointed out that there is as yet no evidence whatsoever that the person who was reported by witnesses as having been seen near Loughner several times was actually connected to him in any way at all. He may be merely another witness, just as easily (maybe more easily) as involved in the crime.
by Wikkiwallana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:23 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Farnhamia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:24 pm
Coccygia wrote:Muravyets wrote:It should be pointed out that there is as yet no evidence whatsoever that the person who was reported by witnesses as having been seen near Loughner several times was actually connected to him in any way at all. He may be merely another witness, just as easily (maybe more easily) as involved in the crime.
Sadly it appears thatOswaldLoughner acted alone, the other guy was just a cabbie (so was Travis Bickle though). Oh well he could still be a Teabagger. And I still think Obama's illegitimate son was involved somehow.
by Coccygia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:29 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Coccygia wrote:Sadly it appears thatOswaldLoughner acted alone, the other guy was just a cabbie (so was Travis Bickle though). Oh well he could still be a Teabagger. And I still think Obama's illegitimate son was involved somehow.
No, it was John McCain's illegitimate child. You know, the one we heard about in the 2000 Republican primaries.
by Gauthier » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:30 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Coccygia wrote:Sadly it appears thatOswaldLoughner acted alone, the other guy was just a cabbie (so was Travis Bickle though). Oh well he could still be a Teabagger. And I still think Obama's illegitimate son was involved somehow.
No, it was John McCain's illegitimate child. You know, the one we heard about in the 2000 Republican primaries.
by Grave_n_idle » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:33 pm
Marsini wrote:1. It is reckless to designate blame without evidence. Everybody was pissed when I said that it was an agent from Djbouti with the same amount of concrete evidence as they had. I expect reasonable standards other than the Tea Party motivated it because they said stuff.
Marsini wrote:2. Palin isn't a governor anymore, she is a celebrity. I prefer her to the morons in hollywood who support Hugo Chavez. Bachmann isn't a mainstream Republican to my knowledge. She also took back the statements questioning Obama's patriotism- which is the worst thing I found in an immediate search. Why not attempt Michael Steele or Boehner?
3. Actually, it is relatively different. You would be explicitly advocating for me to murder myself. The Tea Party is using indirect rhetoric. Moral responsibility means that they did something directly and undeniably morally reprehensible. Telling somebody to die falls under such a definition. Warning that a revolution would occur if the people's rights were violated is not morally reprehensible- although I disagree with even saying it this early if at all- it simply isn't. The fact is to be morally reprehensible you would have had to have a hand in the crime or directly incited the crime. The legal standards are relatively effective when it comes to this.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, ML Library, Revinorian
Advertisement