Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 333297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1680 on: May 10, 2012, 03:50:57 PM »
@Bosk,

The reason you locked the thread is the very core of the debate.  Perhaps there was a better way to say it; but it IS an issue of civil rights.  And if you don't think its a civil rights issue, please say why.  You can't dismiss our views because you may feel its insulting to you (even though you are absolutely in the right to feel so).

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1681 on: May 10, 2012, 04:03:04 PM »
I'd just like to say that I was fixing to blow GMD's very solid post clean out of the water before the thread got locked.   :biggrin:
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1682 on: May 10, 2012, 04:06:34 PM »
@Bosk,

The reason you locked the thread is the very core of the debate.  Perhaps there was a better way to say it; but it IS an issue of civil rights.  And if you don't think its a civil rights issue, please say why.  You can't dismiss our views because you may feel its insulting to you (even though you are absolutely in the right to feel so).

This is the reason for pm

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1683 on: May 10, 2012, 04:09:23 PM »
I dunno, I agree with soundgarden.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1684 on: May 10, 2012, 04:29:36 PM »
I guess I just don't understand why people get so personally invested and worked up in what strangers on the internet think about things. That thread was getting pretty chippy.


Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5144
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1685 on: May 10, 2012, 04:44:48 PM »
I'd just like to say that I was fixing to blow GMD's very solid post clean out of the water before the thread got locked.   :biggrin:


I was about to solve world hunger and cure aids before the thread was locked. :lol

It was probably for the best. I was about to really make emotional responses. Those arent good. I do think most people were handling the conversation well.

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7127
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1686 on: May 10, 2012, 04:57:26 PM »
Voting for Egyptians abroad starts in a day and I'm still undecided, watching the first debate between two of the thirteen candidates. Folks in Egypt start voting a week after us so they have more time to watch the upcoming debates although I don't think it will add anything to what I already know.
Although I'm fucked cause I'm undecided, I'm still very glad to take part in the first presidential elections in my life time of 30 years.
Just thought to share that, I've been in a shit storm of debates and discussions for the last 6 month with other Egyptians, so much has happened and there was something new everyday in Egypt. Going along side the elections and reading/watching a lot of the nominees ideas and programs. I'm tired but aware of how important this is, that's why I'm whining about it to you guys and not to other Egyptians heh
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1687 on: May 10, 2012, 06:38:29 PM »
@Bosk,

The reason you locked the thread is the very core of the debate.  Perhaps there was a better way to say it; but it IS an issue of civil rights.  And if you don't think its a civil rights issue, please say why.  You can't dismiss our views because you may feel its insulting to you (even though you are absolutely in the right to feel so).

Agreed. That thread was interesting, and for the most part entirely civil. I've moderated a fair amount of internet communities in the past decade, and that thread flagged nothing to me in terms of needing shut-down. To shut down the discussion merely because you disagree with those who label anti-gay-marriage people as being anti-civil-rights is quite harrowing to me as it seems to insinuate that you are denying the possibility that it ought to be in homosexuals civil rights to marry, and as someone in a homosexual relationship I find it uncomfortable that you would do that. If the situation were reversed and I, as a bisexual, were to shut down a discussion wherein people were stating that I shouldn't have the civil right to marry my boyfriend, would that be equally justifiable? I think not. If you disagree with something said in a debate, then engage in that debate by all means and express your objections, but I implore you not to just shut down discussion and deny others a voice.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1688 on: May 10, 2012, 06:47:23 PM »
As I stated earlier, these should be pm'd to a mod per first paragraph of rule page. 

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1689 on: May 10, 2012, 06:55:41 PM »
Rick, first off, I want to thank YOU for being one who, despite disagreeing VERY strongly with the anti- position and voicing your opinion forcefully, you always kept it civil.  Second, I'm sorry you get the impression that I shut the thread simply because I disagree with a position being taken.  I have not and will not do that and, again, I apologize if that was the impression I inadvertently gave.  But, Rick, if you were around on a regular basis and kept track of my record in how I moderate, I have issued FAR more warnings and bans to people on the right for getting out of hand than people on the left, and I try hard to be extra tolerant when it comes to warning people on the left side of these debates because I want to make sure I am being as unbiased as possible in the way I mod.  Whether you personally believe that or not, I am quite comfortable with the fact that I do not ban, warn, or otherwise mod threads based on whether I agree with a person's viewpoint or ideology.

As far as the issue at hand, let me rephrase:  In my opinion, it is NOT a civil right issue.  HOWEVER, I recognize that a good many people who posted in the thread DO view it that way.  I may personally disagree with that position as an individual, but in my capacity as the person who runs the forum, that's perfectly fine.  I did not shut the thread down for that reason.  There is a difference between, (1) on one hand, holding the opinion that it should be considered a civil rights issue and arguing the point that denying gay marriage is to deny people their civil rights, versus (2) on the other hand, stating as fact that it is a civil rights issue and, by default, anyone who disagrees is bigoted and willing to trample willy-nilly over the rights of others.  Do you see the difference?  Admittedly, it is a subtle one.  And in and of itself, not something I would have locked the thread over.  But it was one of MANY instances in that thread of people personally attacking others and tossing around labels at any who disagree.  Whether that flies on some other forums you frequent or not, that isn't the kind of environment I want here, and there are times when I get sick of it--no matter which side of the political or religious spectrum it is coming from. 

If people want the thread reopened and can discuss the issue civilly, that's fine.  I will reopen it.  I wish all who post in it would follow the example of people like you, El Barto, and yeshua, for example, in terms of how to post an opinion in a civil way.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Rick

  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Female
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1690 on: May 10, 2012, 07:19:18 PM »
As I stated earlier, these should be pm'd to a mod per first paragraph of rule page.

No it doesn't:

Quote
Punishment/Enforcement:
Posts and threads with content that breaks the rules are subject to closing or deletion. If a moderator does not provide a reason for deletion and you wish to know, PM him/her/it/they.

Users who violate the rules will be warned at most three times before action is taken against them. The actions taken are largely at the moderators' discretion and will be scaled with the severity of the infraction. If you have a question about a rule or the punishment you received for breaking a rule, PM or e-mail a moderator. Please don't start threads about individual cases of moderation.

That first paragraph says to PM the mod if they DON'T give a reason why they have closed or deleted things. Bosk did give a reason, ergo that rule doesn't apply to this situation.

The second paragraph says don't start new threads about cases - this is in the chat thread and not a new thread. It also says if you have a question about a rule 'you' broke then PM the mod - I didn't break any rules in that discussion, and therefore it makes sense to have a transparent open discussion about this instance because it was shut due to the actions of numerous posters, and not just one. I'm a great believer in transparency in general; things that instill an unhealthy rigid kyriarchy genuinely disturb me, and things done behind closed doors disturb me even more.

Rick, first off, I want to thank YOU for being one who, despite disagreeing VERY strongly with the anti- position and voicing your opinion forcefully, you always kept it civil. 

No problem. Ad hominems are not the way I ever do things.

As far as the issue at hand, let me rephrase:  In my opinion, it is NOT a civil right issue.  HOWEVER, I recognize that a good many people who posted in the thread DO view it that way.  I may personally disagree with that position as an individual, but in my capacity as the person who runs the forum, that's perfectly fine.  I did not shut the thread down for that reason.  There is a difference between, (1) on one hand, holding the opinion that it should be considered a civil rights issue and arguing the point that denying gay marriage is to deny people their civil rights, versus (2) on the other hand, stating as fact that it is a civil rights issue and, by default, anyone who disagrees is bigoted and willing to trample willy-nilly over the rights of others.  Do you see the difference?  Admittedly, it is a subtle one. 

On a totally personal level, I actually do think that "it is a civil rights issue and, by default, anyone who disagrees is bigoted and willing to trample willy-nilly over the rights of others" - and I mean that with 100% sincerity, but in the least aggressive way. Marriage is a social union or legal contract, and I don't understand why harm is doled out to homosexual couples who desire this union in the same way as heteresexual couples; gay marriages cause no harm to anyone else whatsoever, and civil unions in most countries do not confer the same rights as marriages and therefore are very unequal; therefore loving couples are treated as 2nd class citizens whereas any ol' drunken straight idiots can go get married in Vegas 2 days after they met and divorce a week later. I genuinely find it offensive when I see people denying that this is a civil rights issue as it is something that legitimately causes suffering to many many people worldwide, and reinforces a clear inequality. In terms of the differences between (1) and (2), then elementary understanding of Wittgenstein and Derrida's linguistic analysis ought to allow one to understand that in the vast majority of cases, (2) is implied by (1), however politely it is articulated  ;)

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1691 on: May 11, 2012, 05:04:03 AM »
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1692 on: May 11, 2012, 06:21:44 AM »
I may disagree with you on many things Bosk; but you at least you are fair and open :tup

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1693 on: May 11, 2012, 08:14:19 AM »
Good article about how the media has lost all pretense of factchecking: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/03/boomerang-kids-85-percent-media/
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1694 on: May 11, 2012, 09:58:38 AM »
I'm posting the text from a pdf file that is provided by the website that propelled the amendment. It is helpful in establishing clarity in what the amendment was designed to do and in dispelling disingenuous information about the amendment as well:



Myths & Facts:
The North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment

Myth: The amendment isn’t necessary.

Fact: Unless North Carolina passes the Marriage Protection Amendment, our present marriage laws are vulnerable to politicians and activist judges overturning them and imposing same-sex marriage here. This is what occurred in New York, New Hampshire, California, Massachusetts, Iowa, District of Columbia, Vermont and Connecticut. Already, lawsuits have been filed in North Carolina to invalidate our marriage laws! We need the Amendment to ensure that lawsuits like this are not successful.

Myth: The amendment is just more big government telling people how to live their private lives.

Fact: The amendment will prevent government from re-defining marriage for us without our input or our vote. Marriage has a definition that predates government, and the amendment will insure that government, either through an activist judge or legislative action, cannot redefine marriage. Once the amendment passes, only another vote of the people of North Carolina can change the definition of marriage.

Myth: Marriage is simply about loving couples making a public commitment of their love.

Fact: Marriage certainly provides an opportunity for a couple in love to declare their commitment to each other, but the government doesn’t regulate marriage to provide a forum for public commitment simply because two people love each other. Marriage is unique because it is the social institution we recognize to channel the biological drive of men and women with its inherent capacity to produce children into the ideal family units. Marriage provides the best opportunity of ensuring that any children produced by that sexual union are known by and cared for by their biological parents, and that benefits us all. It is because of children that government regulates and licenses marriage.

Myth: The amendment prohibits same sex couples from entering into private contractual agreements.

Fact: No. The Marriage Protection Amendment is very clear: “This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts." Thus, the Amendment allows same-sex couples and others to enter into, and enforce, private legal agreements. For instance, a private company could agree to provide health benefits to any couple it chooses, and the couple could enforce this agreement in court.

Myth: The measure strips important public benefits for same-sex partners of city and county employees.

Fact: Government benefits that are currently received by unmarried couples can continue to exist, even with the passage of the Amendment. Universities and other local governments, under the Amendment, can grant benefits to an individual government employee that he or she could share with another person of his or her choice.

Myth: The measure contains vague language that could have profound unforeseen consequences.

Fact: The amendment is two sentences and easy to read and understand. It means, simply, that marriage will continue to be only between one man and one woman and that private parties can enter into enforceable contracts with other private parties.

Myth: The amendment could invalidate domestic violence laws as they are currently applied to unmarried couples.

Fact: This myth is an example of the length to which opponents of the amendment are going to attempt to trick voters into opposing the amendment. No state with a similar amendment has ever ruled that it has any impact on domestic violence laws. In Ohio, their Supreme Court made clear that their marriage protection amendment would not impact the application of the state domestic violence laws. The same is true in North Carolina.

Myth: The amendment could interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights that seek to protect the best interests of children.

Fact: The amendment has nothing to do with child custody laws or arrangements.

Myth: The amendment could result in courts invalidating trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives– which are not “private contracts” – in which an unmarried partner is a beneficiary and/or is entrusted with the care of a loved one.

Fact: The amendment has nothing to do with trusts, wills and end-of-life directives. The amendment puts our existing definition of marriage into the constitution where it will be safe from future legislative or judicial tampering. It will not interfere with private agreements governing the end-of-life decisions made by same-sex partners.

Myth: The amendment should be called the “anti gay amendment.”

Fact: The amendment is pro-marriage, it is not anti-anyone and doesn’t even use the words “gay” or “homosexual.” Our current marriage laws limit marriage to only one man and one woman. The amendment does not change that.

Myth: The amendment signals to gay people that they are second-class citizens.

Fact: Thousands of gays and lesbians have chosen to make North Carolina their home, where marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. All citizens of our state – gay and straight – are respected and welcomed, but that doesn’t mean that marriage should be redefined.

Myth: The amendment is bad for business.

Fact: Marriage is not only good for families and children, but also good for business. Research shows that states with a marriage protection amendment in their state constitution are the nation’s top performing economic states. This includes eight of the top ten “best states for business” (according to a survey of 556 CEOs) and eight of the top ten states for job growth (according to Moody’s Analytics, Nov. 23, 2011).

Myth: Polls show that the amendment is trailing badly and will fail.

Fact: Every legitimate poll of likely or actual North Carolina voters has shown the marriage amendment has extensive support in the Tar Heel state. This includes polls by PPP, the Civitas Institute, and Public Opinion Strategies. The only survey claiming that the amendment is trailing is an outdated Elon University Survey, but this poll admits that it “does not restrict respondents by voter eligibility or likelihood of voting.” Every state in the nation to consider a marriage amendment has approved it, including states like California, Wisconsin, and Maine.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1695 on: May 11, 2012, 10:00:59 AM »
I may disagree with you on many things Bosk; but you at least you are fair and open :tup

I may not always be successful, but I hope it is clear that I do at least try very hard.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Nick

  • A doctor.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20050
  • Gender: Male
  • But not the medical kind.
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1696 on: May 11, 2012, 10:03:51 AM »
Wrong thread?

Edit: @Omega
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1697 on: May 11, 2012, 10:13:22 AM »
Wrong thread?

Edit: @Omega

I'm getting contradictory orders from the moderators / administrators now; bosk asked me "to leave" the "right" thread merely for discussing my stance on same-sex marriage (and dismissed my comment with a simple "it's, like, your opinion but you're entitled to it"). So it appears that I can no longer post on that thread because if I do, bosk (or yeshaberto; take your pick) will likely issue me another "warning" merely for discussing the matter at hand, or for "stating my views to harshly," or for "being off topic" or for "derailing the thread by responding to responses to my post" (again, take your pick).

Either way, what I posted isn't "my view"; it's a statement made by the amendment's website. Which I thought would be handy to post since it's what is being discussed.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36085
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1698 on: May 11, 2012, 10:16:03 AM »
I'm posting the text from a pdf file that is provided by the website that propelled the amendment. It is helpful in establishing clarity in what the amendment was designed to do and in dispelling disingenuous information about the amendment as well:



Myths & Facts:
The North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment


As nice as all of that is, it is just a bunch of arguments they themselves designed. I'd love for the "myths" to be actual objections that people are using, along with real answers and not just political one liners to deflect the root objection.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Nick

  • A doctor.
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 20050
  • Gender: Male
  • But not the medical kind.
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1699 on: May 11, 2012, 10:22:43 AM »
Wrong thread?

Edit: @Omega

I'm getting contradictory orders from the moderators / administrators now; bosk asked me "to leave" the "right" thread merely for discussing my stance on same-sex marriage (and dismissed my comment with a simple "it's, like, your opinion but you're entitled to it"). So it appears that I can no longer post on that thread because if I do, bosk (or yeshaberto; take your pick) will likely issue me another "warning" merely for discussing the matter at hand, or for "stating my views to harshly," or for "being off topic" or for "derailing the thread by responding to responses to my post" (again, take your pick).

Either way, what I posted isn't "my view"; it's a statement made by the amendment's website. Which I thought would be handy to post since it's what is being discussed.

You can check with Bosk for clarification, but generally if you are asked to leave a discussion, that doesn't mean you can just continue it elsewhere.

And for the latter "quoted" parts, I'd suggest instead of being confused by them you learn what they mean and try and fix things appropriately, and thus issues like this won't happen in the future.
For the best online progressive radio: ProgRock.com
For the best in progressive news, reviews, and interviews: SonicPerspectives.com
For a trove of older podcasts and interviews: WPaPU.com
Awesome Majesty Pendant Club: Member #1

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12785
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1700 on: May 11, 2012, 10:31:05 AM »
Wrong thread?

Edit: @Omega

I'm getting contradictory orders from the moderators / administrators now; bosk asked me "to leave" the "right" thread merely for discussing my stance on same-sex marriage (and dismissed my comment with a simple "it's, like, your opinion but you're entitled to it"). So it appears that I can no longer post on that thread because if I do, bosk (or yeshaberto; take your pick) will likely issue me another "warning" merely for discussing the matter at hand, or for "stating my views to harshly," or for "being off topic" or for "derailing the thread by responding to responses to my post" (again, take your pick).

Either way, what I posted isn't "my view"; it's a statement made by the amendment's website. Which I thought would be handy to post since it's what is being discussed.

You can check with Bosk for clarification, but generally if you are asked to leave a discussion, that doesn't mean you can just continue it elsewhere.

And for the latter "quoted" parts, I'd suggest instead of being confused by them you learn what they mean and try and fix things appropriately, and thus issues like this won't happen in the future.

^All of that.  If you want to post something like that and can have civil discussion about it without doing the things you have been warned for, that's fine.  Go ahead.  But as I said, continue on your prior path, and you will be banned for it no matter what thread you posted it in.  Doing the same kinds of things AND doing it in an off-topic thread doesn't somehow make the problem go away.  It makes it worse.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1701 on: May 11, 2012, 10:33:00 AM »
You can check with Bosk for clarification, but generally if you are asked to leave a discussion, that doesn't mean you can just continue it elsewhere.

I didn't post that from the website to continue any conversation on this thread; I posted it for mere reference and for others to be clear on what the amendment was designed to accomplish, what it affects and what it doesn't, etc.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1702 on: May 11, 2012, 02:27:26 PM »
Well that's basically the same thing, isn't it? Also the point of the chat thread, AFAIK, is for much smaller P/R topics that don't require their own thread and for non-serious stuff like political cartoons and the like.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1703 on: May 16, 2012, 08:12:16 AM »
Because I know someone in P/R will find a use for it:


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1704 on: May 17, 2012, 07:58:27 AM »
This anti-Obama Ricketts plan really astounds me. I really hope the Obama Campaign will have a good counter to it.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1706 on: May 17, 2012, 08:13:13 AM »
I saw that, fascinating stuff. I'm always reluctant though because I'm not sure how great their choices for citations usually are (and I can't be arsed to check). I know for a fact the stuff about Cahokia and the Vikings is true though.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1707 on: May 17, 2012, 09:14:26 AM »
Cops being cops

The first of these guys was acquitted yesterday.  Not a big deal realistically, since he only faced a year in jail, but on principle it's pretty insulting. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1708 on: May 17, 2012, 09:33:54 AM »
Cops being cops, like you said.  People can spout the "Oh, you don't know what they face on a day to day basis, they're putting their lives on the line".  Maybe some other day they are.  There was a mob of cops pummeling the shit out of someone who'd already laid down and given up.  WTF??  Cop apologists drive me fucking crazy.  It's always amusing to see stories like this on Fark, because the discussion has a clear side of aplogists and people who think cops are America's best armed street gang.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1709 on: May 17, 2012, 09:47:17 AM »
Interestingly, even some of the guys over at the cop forum think this was out of line, and they'll normally always side with their own.  However, they're mostly just pissed off that this kid will get a huge settlement, despite the fact that he was convicted of the burglary he was being apprehended for. 

And speaking of America's biggest street gang, it would seem that another Rampart scandal might be brewing in LA.
https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sheriff-clique-20120510,0,728956.story
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13979
  • Gender: Male
  • Kelly Clarkson BEEFS
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1710 on: May 17, 2012, 09:54:13 AM »
Doesn't really surprise me much.  I sometimes feel the need to tell Mrs. C's kid that "If you are EVER somewhere and police show up, calmly, quickly, and as inconspicuously as possible, GTFO, even if you didn't do anything wrong."  Some would say "If you did nothing wrong, then why leave?"  Because of things like the links you posted.  There is an overwhelming majority of cops, in my opinion, who were probably slighted in high school and now have a God complex, because they have a badge and a gun.  That does not bode well for those they've vowed to "protect and serve".

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1711 on: May 17, 2012, 10:01:23 AM »
While there's certainly some little-man complex going on, I never really thought that was the root of the problem.  The bad attitude is the result of being a cop, not the precursor.  There's a necessary us against them mentality that cops have, and it's actually somewhat understandable, but the inevitable result is that they tend to turn into thugs as a result of it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1712 on: May 17, 2012, 10:39:09 AM »
It's just human nature.  Give anyone power, and they'll abuse it.  This goes for school presidents to generals.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1713 on: May 17, 2012, 12:15:04 PM »
To all those who yearn for "the good ole days" before our country went insane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30560
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #1714 on: May 17, 2012, 12:52:18 PM »
To all those who yearn for "the good ole days" before our country went insane:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Not sure what point you're trying to make, but I actually do prefer an era where 50 kids get blown up and people shrug, say that's a shame, and then get on with their lives.  It seems to me like people back then didn't have a sense that they're entitled to live to old age.  Since people dying young nowadays is totally unacceptable in any way, every incident like this requires all the rest of us to change the way we live.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson