Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote:

Alhazad wrote:Good post, good contribution.

And what exactly do you call your clearly bigoted justifications for violence against someone simply because when they talk they don't say things you like? Are they "good posts" and "good contributions"?

They are "good" because they advocate violence against the correct people. Your posts are just fascist.

You know, and I see this a lot.... whenever someone makes an otherwise reasonable argument about... say, global warming, or capitalism, or the war on drugs, or immigration... and the crux of their argument is, "You know, things would be a whole lot better if we could just kill all of *these* people..."

Then you know a fucking psycho is talking who really needs help.

Just fyi.

TPRJones wrote:Yes, Democrats are bad. Some of them are very bad. But no one is as smugly self-satisfied and eminently punchable as Donald J. Trump.

LOL! And this is coming from someone that works at a college? I'm assuming you don't get to spend much time with the faculty.

GORDON wrote:2008: Democrats - "Republican idiots keep saying I WANT TO VOTE FOR W BECAUSE I'D WANT TO HAVE A BEER WITH HIM. Likability is no way to choose a leader to run the country."

It's not the only thing that matters when picking.

2016: Democrats - DONT VOTE FOR TRUMP BECAUSE HE HAS NO LIKABILITY. VOTE FOR THE LIAR INSTEAD.

Trump is a thousand times less personable than Dubyuh was. I have nothing but grave doubts about his ability to deal with foreign leaders because he's shown less than zero ability to deal with domestic ones (even ones in his own party) without resorting to insults or name-calling within five minutes.

GORDON wrote:You know, and I see this a lot.... whenever someone makes an otherwise reasonable argument about... say, global warming, or capitalism, or the war on drugs, or immigration... and the crux of their argument is, "You know, things would be a whole lot better if we could just kill all of *these* people..."

Then you know a fucking psycho is talking who really needs help.

Just fyi.

Aren't you in the "vote for Trump, let it burn" camp?


Also by that argument, you'd have to be anti-death penalty because sanctioned execution is nothing more than a statement which says, "Our society would be better off it we killed this person instead of imprisoning, trying to rehabilitate, or otherwise wasting time on them."

I am anti-death penalty.

GORDON wrote:I am anti-death penalty.

How about the Heath Ledger Joker-like take on the election?

The comparison was so ridiculous that I thought you were kidding.

I am in favor of capitol punishment when justified. I am opposed to it being judged and administered by any form of government.

I am in favor of capitol punishment when justified.

Word.

I am opposed to it being judged and administered by any form of government.

Yes and no.

Let's say you catch someone trying to rape your 8 year old. You should have the right to end them. But let's say you don't, do we want the government allowing that person to walk free? No, so that means a trial and prison. But where's the benefit for our society if that person spends the rest of their life in prison? You can't rehabilitate them because "you can't tell people who to love or who they are". So that means we can never let them out of prison, so why keep them alive? Aside from draining our economy, what purpose do they serve? Although, why not use these people in scientific experiments (non-weapon experiments). Maybe then their lives will have had purpose other than delivering pain to others.

Here's a little fun with how the media reports the "news":

Here's a decently unbiased article from the New York Times about Trump's new push to appeal to black voters. Now typically people think of the NYT as left leaning, so this is a nice example of professional journalism.

The same topic covered by NBC News.

I was going to post quotes of the bias, but I'd just be quoting the entire article. That's pure propaganda. Fuck Trump, but this sort of "reporting" is bullshit.

TPRJones wrote:I am in favor of capitol punishment when justified. I am opposed to it being judged and administered by any form of government.

Well let me qualify my statement, yeah, I don't want to fuckup government executing peeps with lethal injection or even drones.

edit - was on my phone, I didn't see that extra word in there that fucked up my intent.

do we want the government allowing that person to walk free?

So they do the dirty work you're too lazy/scared/righteous to do?

But where's the benefit for our society if that person spends the rest of their life in prison?

Keeping them isolated and the fuck away from everyone else?

You can't rehabilitate them because "you can't tell people who to love or who they are".

If you consider rehabilitation to be the breaking of their attraction to children, yes, they're probably incurable in most cases.

So that means we can never let them out of prison, so why keep them alive?

Oh no. I'm not falling down that trapdoor. Whether you call pedophilia a mental disorder or simply an unfortunate configuration of the psyche, it's way too easy to set a precedent where other "incurable mental diseases" warrant euthanasia. If you call it an illness, then treat them like they're sick. If you think it's an ingrained urge that cannot be purged from their brain, you have to give them the opportunity to control themselves. If they piss that away often enough, then I'll consider killing.

So they do the dirty work you're too lazy/scared/righteous to do?

Don't they already do that now?

Keeping them isolated and the fuck away from everyone else?

At a cost. I'm just trying to save us some money that could be used in schools.

If you consider rehabilitation to be the breaking of their attraction to children, yes, they're probably incurable in most cases.

What do you mean by "most"? Does that mean there are some gay people that can be "cured"?

Whether you call pedophilia a mental disorder or simply an unfortunate configuration of the psyche, it's way too easy to set a precedent where other "incurable mental diseases" warrant euthanasia. If you call it an illness, then treat them like they're sick.

Bah. The "slippery slope" argument. I always find it interesting how it fits for some arguments, but not for others (usually when it's used against you...I say "you" there generally, not referring to you specifically). When your mental illness means harming other people and it's incurable, I'm probably ok with dropping you. I believe most mental disorders can be treated to some level, but as has been established "who you love" can't.

If you think it's an ingrained urge that cannot be purged from their brain, you have to give them the opportunity to control themselves.

Do we? Is the bar "Even though we know you're incurable, we have to pretend you are, so good luck and tough shit to whomever you molest and/or murder."?

If they piss that away often enough, then I'll consider killing.

Out of curiosity, how many kids' lives must be ruined or taken before you consider killing them? How many victims' lives equal one predator's life?

Leisher wrote:

Alhazad wrote:Good post, good contribution.

And what exactly do you call your clearly bigoted justifications for violence against someone simply because when they talk they don't say things you like? Are they "good posts" and "good contributions"?

That's your second strawman. No dice.

I said that I celebrate that people want to hurt Trump, and then I clarified that it was because the violent anger lets me know that people are paying attention. Not once did I express approval of violent acts. And I know you read the clarification, because you quoted the post.

GORDON wrote:Me too, what we definitely need is more violence and hostility over things that don't matter and we can't change.

I disagree -- I think we need more passivity.

Let me stop being an asshole for a second: how do you suppose we'll get out from under this ridiculously unrepresentative Trump-and-Hillary-picking electoral system without tapping violence and hostility for, at the very least, a source of motivating anger? I'm not inciting... I want there to be a peaceful solution. But I'm not seeing it.

That's your second strawman.

It's not even my first.

I said that I celebrate that people want to hurt Trump, and then I clarified that it was because the violent anger lets me know that people are paying attention. Not once did I express approval of violent acts. And I know you read the clarification, because you quoted the post.

Well, let's examine what you said, and when. Here's your original quote:

I gladly celebrate that there are people out there who want to harm Trump.

Three people instantly criticized you for advocating the violence. You didn't respond with "clarification" at that point. Here's what you actually responded with:

He has done nothing but harm others his entire life. He encourages violence at rallies. Trump University ate up hope and crapped out poverty. You can't even accuse him of helping his fellow wealthy because he's a consistent business failure who mooches money for grand schemes and then goes bankrupt, over and over.

He'll vacate the position of hurting people only when he's dead or destitute.

Clearly an answer full of bias, unless you have sources on all these claims? Be careful about quoting MSM sources though or you'll give Gordon ammo for the other thread where he's accusing you of making conflicting statements about "morons who get their information from the news". (And just so you know, aside from the "encourages violence" comment, I wouldn't necessarily think your other points are wrong.)

Your next post was taking offense to my joke:

I don't know, but if Alhazad is correct, it'll be a zig zag pattern to disrupt as many of the peasants lives as possible.

Good post, good contribution.

Wait, there you finally "clarify" your original comment, only in response to Vince:

I don't wish him dead either. But I am glad that there are people paying enough attention to bear him ill will.

Also, you say I quoted that post. Technically, I quoted only the part addressed to me. I barely skimmed the second part until just now because I was curious why you were so defensive over what was clearly a joke. Unless you honestly do believe he would take zig zagging route to bother the peasants?

So I'll just say that on Thursday at 7:30 a.m. you were celebrating violence. Around 20 hours later, and despite posting at least one other time, you finally "clarified" your comment.

You retconing your statement doesn't make mine strawman.

By the way, here you are advocating violence again:

Let me stop being an asshole for a second: how do you suppose we'll get out from under this ridiculously unrepresentative Trump-and-Hillary-picking electoral system without tapping violence and hostility for, at the very least, a source of motivating anger? I'm not inciting... I want there to be a peaceful solution. But I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, yeah, I see your clarifying statement at the end, but you seriously put that in the same post where you're telling me I'm strawmaning you about that very subject? C'mon!

Now as to your actual point at the end there, maybe you're right. Maybe a revolution will be what it takes to clean up the mess. Whether that revolution takes places non-violently or violently shall be seen.

Leisher wrote:

That's your second strawman.

It's not even my first.

Your 'zig-zag' applause line was a strawman. Your assertion that I'm justifying violence was a strawman.

Clearly an answer full of bias, unless you have sources on all these claims?

Sometimes it seems like all I do is run down links for you.
Trump encourages violence.
PDF of the New York State allegation against Trump U, stating that, among other charges, it illegally called itself a university, defrauded its 'students', and engaged in management misconduct (that one was new to me).
Snopes rundown of Trump's corporate bankruptcies, and the rich bankers he mooched money from to ride out said bankruptcies. Most of the bankrupt businesses were casinoes, and three of them were competing directly against one another, because Trump is a human Subway franchise. How the fuck do you even do that?
Politifact confirmation of same.

Your next post was taking offense to my joke:
...
Wait, there you finally "clarify" your original comment, only in response to Vince:

It's inconsistent of you to fault me for responding to Vince with my clarification when you're finding fault with my other reply that came after your alleged 'incitement of violence' not being a clarification despite being to Vince and on an equally tangential matter.

Also, you say I quoted that post. Technically, I quoted only the part addressed to me. I barely skimmed the second part until just now because I was curious why you were so defensive over what was clearly a joke.

Because you make a lot of glib jabs and I was tired of it just then. You got tired of Malcolm's shit and lashed out at him -- I'd hope you'd extend me the courtesy to behave the same.

So I'll just say that on Thursday at 7:30 a.m. you were celebrating violence.

I was celebrating the existence of violent thoughts toward Trump. Thoughts are not actions. You couldn't make this case in Night Court. I am glad that people are angry at him -- they should be, after the way he hijacked the fucking nomination and then plowed the GOP under to hand the presidency to the single worst politician of my generation.

By the way, here you are advocating violence again:

Do get a grip.

What do you mean by "most"? Does that mean there are some gay people that can be "cured"?

Being gay cured? No, because it's not a disease. It can't be "cured" in the same way that preferring pepsi over coke can't be "cured".

That having been said, sexuality is fluid. What people find attractive does tend to change over time. The rate of change decreases drastically after the completion of puberty, but it does still drift. There was a time I was into redheads, but now I really prefer brunettes. Our experiences over time cause our preferences to drift in reaction.

Sexual preference drifting from one gender to another is pretty extreme and likely very rare. But I'd bet that drifting into and out of the marginally bisexual zone is relatively common. Especially for women, who tend to be a bit more fluid than men in this area.

But more to the point: pedophilia. Pedophiles can't help who they find attractive, no. Can they be cured? Maybe with a very carefully constructed series of experiences that push their attractions to a more appropriate age group, but I don't think we have the no-how to do that sort of thing yet. I think the real problem is not that they are attracted to children, it's that they have chosen to take action that harms children. And for that choice I generally have no problem ending them. Not because of who they are, but because of their chosen actions.

We each of us have to use self-control in our lives to keep from doing things we probably shouldn't. For most of us that usually isn't much worse than the occasional desire to punch an asshole. Some have darker urges to keep in check. A failure to do so that causes harm to another is unforgivable (to the degree of the harm given).

Alhazad wrote:That's your second strawman. No dice.

I said that I celebrate that people want to hurt Trump, and then I clarified that it was because the violent anger lets me know that people are paying attention. Not once did I express approval of violent acts. And I know you read the clarification, because you quoted the post.

what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Your 'zig-zag' applause line was a strawman. Your assertion that I'm justifying violence was a strawman.

For this and the rest of your response that relates to it, I stand by the presented time line and statements that are in black and white (or whatever color you have in your settings). So I think Vince's quote from Billy Madison is the proper one to wrap up that discussion.

As for your links, first I apologize for asking folks to occasionally back up statements that are made. I'm certainly not the only one to do that, and you're certainly not the only person to ever be asked to do so. My intent there is to get more information myself as I'm sure it is for everyone else. I like to see where other people get their opinions. Second, if you go back and read, the only one I questioned was the inciting violence and I looked at that link, and while I see your point, I can also see comments by an older guy who isn't a politician talking tough like some guys tend to do. Some of the quotes are damning, some more of a "pile on" by his critics. Not excusing him, but I don't think he's Hitler. And by the way, it's not like those who are politically opposed to him are innocent of those same sins. (But still, thank you for posting that link.)

Trump is clearly not someone to be trusted. While many people think he "would change business in Washington", I think he'd be more of the same. Want proof? He did a Celebrity Apprentice season where the final two were professional poker player Annie Duke and Joan Rivers. Their task was to raise money for charity. Annie Duke raised over $1 million more than Joan Rivers. Her team was run efficiently and she was pure business. Yet he gave the win to Joan, and couldn't justify it. He kept saying how much people liked her. Yeah, it's a stupid reality show, but it showed that it was more important to him to protect a friend than to reward someone who worked hard and got better results. I think about that every time he says "I'll hire the best people." No, he'll hire friends. How is that a change from what currently goes on in Washington?

But here's where I have a massive problem with the anti-Trump movement:

I am glad that people are angry at him -- they should be, after the way he hijacked the fucking nomination and then plowed the GOP under to hand the presidency to the single worst politician of my generation.

It's not just a Trump problem. He wasn't the only one responsible for where we're at right now. The GOP is so out of touch they thought he was a joke and did nothing while he built his base. The DNC had Sanders vs Clinton as if either is a good option (something even left wingers have pointed out would be getting more press if Trump wasn't the other option). The MSM shoulders a lot of the blame for being biased and running opinions as news. And let's not forget actual voters who claim to be fed up, but keep voting for the turd sandwich or the douche-bag.

Also, Hillary Clinton is a worse politician than Trump by a mile because Trump's not a politician! He's just an asshole businessman with such low self esteem that he has to plaster his name on everything, marry beautiful women as status symbols (foreign women because American women wouldn't put up with his shit), and is basically running to protect his pride or some shit. Trump has zero business being in the position he's in, but neither does Hillary. The left is just fuming over him making dumb comments, meanwhile she's breaking laws, possibly (probably) getting people killed, and yet somehow that's better than shooting your mouth off? It's frustrating as hell to hear people praise either of them or worse say they're voting for one to keep the other out of office.

I don't understand how people makes Trump "so angry", yet Hillary gets a free pass? It's like being in a plane and the pilot is incompetent and drunk so a passenger gets up there are starts flying the plane badly. However, instead of everyone being mad at the pilot, they're mad at the passenger. There's no logic in the anti-Trump movement. There's common sense because he has no business being there, but his opponent is worse because this is her career. Why are we pretending we're sick of the government, yet we're electing the poster child for abusing power and being unethical?

Because you make a lot of glib jabs and I was tired of it just then. You got tired of Malcolm's shit and lashed out at him -- I'd hope you'd extend me the courtesy to behave the same.

Pot. Kettle. You are notorious for making glib jabs. We all do. Everything Malcolm says is a glib jab. (THAT was a glib jab.) Gordon and Vince have been doing it to you non-stop in this very thread.

Also, I have not lashed out at Malcolm. My lash out moments tend to be of the "scorch the Earth" variety, and I rarely go to that level.

Do get a grip.

The definition of grip is "to seize or hold firmly". See? Still advocating violence. (In case it's not apparent, I'm joking.)

Being gay cured? No, because it's not a disease. It can't be "cured" in the same way that preferring pepsi over coke can't be "cured".

That having been said, sexuality is fluid. What people find attractive does tend to change over time. The rate of change decreases drastically after the completion of puberty, but it does still drift. There was a time I was into redheads, but now I really prefer brunettes. Our experiences over time cause our preferences to drift in reaction.

Sexual preference drifting from one gender to another is pretty extreme and likely very rare. But I'd bet that drifting into and out of the marginally bisexual zone is relatively common. Especially for women, who tend to be a bit more fluid than men in this area.

But more to the point: pedophilia. Pedophiles can't help who they find attractive, no. Can they be cured? Maybe with a very carefully constructed series of experiences that push their attractions to a more appropriate age group, but I don't think we have the no-how to do that sort of thing yet. I think the real problem is not that they are attracted to children, it's that they have chosen to take action that harms children. And for that choice I generally have no problem ending them. Not because of who they are, but because of their chosen actions.

We each of us have to use self-control in our lives to keep from doing things we probably shouldn't. For most of us that usually isn't much worse than the occasional desire to punch an asshole. Some have darker urges to keep in check. A failure to do so that causes harm to another is unforgivable (to the degree of the harm given).

If you thought I was implying being gay could be cured, I wasn't. I was simply using previous public statements about being gay in my point about pedophiles. And no I'm not linking the two as you could also use "cure straight" in the argument without altering anything else.

We're on the same page.