Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How much sympathy should be granted to a politically active crime victim?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
    Normally I would agree with you. I have a fairly high tolerance for outbursts when someone is bereaved. It is natural to be emotional and even irrational. But I can't maintain that position when the bereaved then seeks to harm someone else. Once it reaches that point I can no longer be supportive. It's okay to be angry. But once you seek to harm other people you step outside the boundaries.
    As I said, since I have not followed this guy, I cannot make a comment about what he says, and f his positions seek to harm other people or not. But I WILL point that the debates about regulations are always debates of some form of individual rights vs public safety and both sides of the debate argue that the position of the opponent inflicts unreasonable harm.
    Last edited by pamak; 01 Apr 18, 01:54.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      The problem with safety regulations is that those who push for them the hardest usually have a "Zero tolerance" mentality. They want regulations that put safety ahead of everything else, even if it makes doing something impossible as a result. There is no thinking "What's the optimal level of safety here?"

      That results in much lower productivity, a push to replace people with automation, and in some cases drives industries overseas to places were the safety rules are more lax.

      You mention drunk driving. You'll never see Mothers Against Drunk Drivers stop pushing for more regulations and laws. They want zero tolerance for two reasons: The primary one is that MADD has become a business. Those who work there need to justify their existence.
      The second is the only thing they can do is push for more laws and stricter ones.

      The March of Dimes is a perfect example of this mentality played out to its conclusion. The March of Dimes was started to eradicate polio. Well, polio has been eradicated. So, the March of Dimes no longer had a mission or purpose. Did they fold up and go away? NO! They found a new mission and continued on as if nothing had happened. They're a business and they're in business in part to provide careers and retirements to their workers.

      So, the safety nuts, and they can be really nuts, do the exact same thing.
      Bold mine..

      There are people who push their extremist positions on both sides. Yes, there are persons who want unreasonably strict regulations and are not interested about the side effects of adopting such measures but there are also persons who push for unreasonably loose regulations who again do not think about the side effects or about "What's the optimal level of safety."
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pamak View Post
        Bold mine..

        There are people who push their extremist positions on both sides. Yes, there are persons who want unreasonably strict regulations and are not interested about the side effects of adopting such measures but there are also persons who push for unreasonably loose regulations who again do not think about the side effects or about "What's the optimal level of safety."
        No, there aren't. You are wrong. There are individuals that will ignore laws and regulations but there aren't any organized groups with any real power or leverage clamoring for an end to them.
        There are plenty of people and organizations that want reasonable laws, rules, and regulations, but the groups that are dangerous are ones that have a vested interest in increasing regulatory control over something.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          No, there aren't. You are wrong. There are individuals that will ignore laws and regulations but there aren't any organized groups with any real power or leverage clamoring for an end to them.
          There are plenty of people and organizations that want reasonable laws, rules, and regulations, but the groups that are dangerous are ones that have a vested interest in increasing regulatory control over something.
          If you want to see dangerous and powerful groups which push for ending (or not implementing) regulations, just look at what is happening with the EPA now or what is happening with the environment in China (quite dangerous I will say to live in the smog of most Chinese cities) or what is happening with those who want to take risks with global warming or with the NRA which refuses to even regulate things like bumb stocks. History has shown that whenever the market was left alone to regulate itself, there was a SHOCKING lack of even basic regulations. Recall Manchester in the Industrial period. As I said before, economists have figure out that certain types of cost, such as pollution, are "externalities" which induce a social cost which isa pretty much ignored by the business world because it do not affect their bottom line. On the contrary, the more loose the regulations are, the less the cost of production, and the more the social cost.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
            So it looks like another Fox show is in the crosshairs of the boycott free speech crowd. Apparently one of the Florida shooting survivors, David Hogg, didn't like something he heard on the Ingraham angle and is trying to get the show shut down. It begs the question of how much sympathy and grace from sympathy should be warranted to a politically active crime victim.

            I certainly feel bad about his harrowing experience. And you're never as dumb as when you're a teenager, I have no doubt he's being flattered and manipulated by the left wing media tugging at the strings. So his behavior is understandable even if it is incorrect or inappropriate. Teenagers are immature, nothing unusual about one throwing a tantrum. Except in this case the tantrum advocates the attacking of free speech.

            I am forced to say my goodwill has limits. If he's going to take a radical anti free speech position and play in the big boy political arena, I can't really rationalize treating him with kid gloves anymore. Youthful naivete or not, he is expressing an attitude dangerous to free speech. At what point should sympathy be withheld and hard reality allowed to deliver a swift kick to the ass?
            Probably at least until 21.
            Is he being manipulated or perhaps using the tragedy to advance a partisan agenda?
            Sure.

            But Laura should have been smart enough to know that criticizing a 17 yr old on national TV will generate a costly backlash.

            Originally posted by American87 View Post
            His whole argument is sympathy. We've already established his anti-gun legislation won't work.
            We did?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
              So it looks like another Fox show is in the crosshairs of the boycott free speech crowd. Apparently one of the Florida shooting survivors, David Hogg, didn't like something he heard on the Ingraham angle and is trying to get the show shut down. It begs the question of how much sympathy and grace from sympathy should be warranted to a politically active crime victim.

              I certainly feel bad about his harrowing experience. And you're never as dumb as when you're a teenager, I have no doubt he's being flattered and manipulated by the left wing media tugging at the strings. So his behavior is understandable even if it is incorrect or inappropriate. Teenagers are immature, nothing unusual about one throwing a tantrum. Except in this case the tantrum advocates the attacking of free speech.

              I am forced to say my goodwill has limits. If he's going to take a radical anti free speech position and play in the big boy political arena, I can't really rationalize treating him with kid gloves anymore. Youthful naivete or not, he is expressing an attitude dangerous to free speech. At what point should sympathy be withheld and hard reality allowed to deliver a swift kick to the ass?
              More of your blablabla. Hard reality gave him the swift kick in the ass when 17 friends were killed. You in your cozy comfort have not lived such reality
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                So it looks like another Fox show is in the crosshairs of the boycott free speech crowd. Apparently one of the Florida shooting survivors, David Hogg, didn't like something he heard on the Ingraham angle and is trying to get the show shut down. It begs the question of how much sympathy and grace from sympathy should be warranted to a politically active crime victim.

                I certainly feel bad about his harrowing experience. And you're never as dumb as when you're a teenager, I have no doubt he's being flattered and manipulated by the left wing media tugging at the strings. So his behavior is understandable even if it is incorrect or inappropriate. Teenagers are immature, nothing unusual about one throwing a tantrum. Except in this case the tantrum advocates the attacking of free speech.

                I am forced to say my goodwill has limits. If he's going to take a radical anti free speech position and play in the big boy political arena, I can't really rationalize treating him with kid gloves anymore. Youthful naivete or not, he is expressing an attitude dangerous to free speech. At what point should sympathy be withheld and hard reality allowed to deliver a swift kick to the ass?
                You can say anything you want to. Whether or not you should say some things is a case for judgment. Laura Ingraham, as well as other talking heads on Fox such as Hannity and Tucker Carlson, is not exercising good judgment in some of the things that they say. To my mind, what they don't know, and that is a wide-ranging subject, they just make up. Gratuitously insulting people and accusing them of things that just aren't true, is wrong. There is too much of that on Fox.

                Free speech does have some limits, such as defaming someone with a lie. Rights also come with responsibility for what you do-and Fox has for quite some time (since they became the Trump channel) gone from accuracy to fantasy. If you do something wrong, then there is a price to pay-maybe not immediately, but the old axiom of 'what goes around comes around' is a truism.

                As for teenagers, I don't agree with your assessment at all. Some of the posters here who gratuitously attack and defame other posters, and accuse others of lying about their accomplishments, are the immature people that you are complaining about. Having taught teenagers for twenty years I have found the greater majority of them to be honest, forthright, and willing to learn. And that puts them at a higher maturity level from those here who blindly defend Trump, and personally attack those with whom they disagree, as well as bigoted ideas that are sometimes put forward here.

                Ingraham was wrong in what she said about Master Hogg and she is nothing more than a right-wing fanatic.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                  David Hogg was 3 miles away, so he wasn't even there.
                  But, still a victim. eh?
                  Or is he the most powerful and influential figure in the media today?

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqjtRC5sxzg


                  Hulu and Expedia are among the list of Corporations boycotting Laura Ingram.
                  After reviewing all of this, it appears that the problem was that CBS included a very confusing quote without context. Hogg was on campus during the shooting and returned several hours later to interview people across the street. The original story remains below, in strikethrough. I am sorry for the error and have updated the post accordingly.
                  https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf...-day-shooting/

                  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...gg-gun-control

                  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...gg-gun-control

                  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...330-story.html

                  You really need to check your sources more thoroughly.
                  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                  G.B Shaw

                  "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                  Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Exo rigorously checks his sources to make sure they agree with him. Same with most of the drones around here. To be fair, he does seem to at least read (or increasingly watch) the stuff he links to, unlike TAG, who frequently just reads the headline.

                    Once you adjust your expectations its all pretty predictable really. So too are the lies & unmitigated hatred being directed at a couple of kids. There are no depths that cannot be plumbed.
                    Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      You can say anything you want to. Whether or not you should say some things is a case for judgment. Laura Ingraham, as well as other talking heads on Fox such as Hannity and Tucker Carlson, is not exercising good judgment in some of the things that they say. To my mind, what they don't know, and that is a wide-ranging subject, they just make up. Gratuitously insulting people and accusing them of things that just aren't true, is wrong. There is too much of that on Fox.

                      Free speech does have some limits, such as defaming someone with a lie. Rights also come with responsibility for what you do-and Fox has for quite some time (since they became the Trump channel) gone from accuracy to fantasy. If you do something wrong, then there is a price to pay-maybe not immediately, but the old axiom of 'what goes around comes around' is a truism.

                      As for teenagers, I don't agree with your assessment at all. Some of the posters here who gratuitously attack and defame other posters, and accuse others of lying about their accomplishments, are the immature people that you are complaining about. Having taught teenagers for twenty years I have found the greater majority of them to be honest, forthright, and willing to learn. And that puts them at a higher maturity level from those here who blindly defend Trump, and personally attack those with whom they disagree, as well as bigoted ideas that are sometimes put forward here.

                      Ingraham was wrong in what she said about Master Hogg and she is nothing more than a right-wing fanatic.
                      The only thing Ingraham did was tell him to quit whining about not getting into his preferred college. Good advice. Whining accomplishes nothing. It certainly doesn't raise your GPA (or make Trump any less president). He responded by throwing a tantrum which isn't exactly the best way to say "I'm a big boy now, please take me seriously". Nothing Ingraham said was a lie or defamatory. It was just good advice. If Hogg wants into a college he needs to work harder in his schoolwork, not complain. More teenagers today need to learn that. And his circumstances don't excuse him from that reality.

                      And many teens are honest and forthright but as I have said before that doesn't magically protect you from being naive.
                      Last edited by Pirateship1982; 01 Apr 18, 09:05.
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        You can say anything you want to. Whether or not you should say some things is a case for judgment. Laura Ingraham, as well as other talking heads on Fox such as Hannity and Tucker Carlson, is not exercising good judgment in some of the things that they say. To my mind, what they don't know, and that is a wide-ranging subject, they just make up. Gratuitously insulting people and accusing them of things that just aren't true, is wrong. There is too much of that on Fox.

                        Free speech does have some limits, such as defaming someone with a lie. Rights also come with responsibility for what you do-and Fox has for quite some time (since they became the Trump channel) gone from accuracy to fantasy. If you do something wrong, then there is a price to pay-maybe not immediately, but the old axiom of 'what goes around comes around' is a truism.

                        As for teenagers, I don't agree with your assessment at all. Some of the posters here who gratuitously attack and defame other posters, and accuse others of lying about their accomplishments, are the immature people that you are complaining about. Having taught teenagers for twenty years I have found the greater majority of them to be honest, forthright, and willing to learn. And that puts them at a higher maturity level from those here who blindly defend Trump, and personally attack those with whom they disagree, as well as bigoted ideas that are sometimes put forward here.

                        Ingraham was wrong in what she said about Master Hogg and she is nothing more than a right-wing fanatic.


                        Ingraham's attack was childish and stupid.

                        The fact that Hogg lived through a horrendous experience does not provide him with maturity, expertise or understanding of Constitutional or social issues.
                        Once he steps into that arena, he is not entitled to any special treatment or respect.
                        He must earn respect. It is not something that he acquires by being a victim.
                        He is entitled to our sympathy and understanding as a victim of a horrendous crime, anything more than that he must earn.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          He helped get a bigger crowd in DC than Trump did. Isn't that something to respect?
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            This whole thing reminds me of the early days and years of the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton...she was Co-President after all...would espouse some new position or initiative...Hillary care for example...as if she was the President, or at least a Cabinet level member of the administration. Then, when some member of the opposition would criticize either her, or her initiative, the Clinton administration's response was "Why are you criticizing her? She's just the First Lady."

                            That sounds exactly like the defenders of Mr. Hogg. Some people want us to take his views and opinions as seriously as if he were a 45 year old member of the US Senate, yet when someone says something critical, or calls him on something, those same people that are wanting us to take him seriously say "He's just a kid."

                            If someone is old enough to put out their views or opinions, especially on a national scale, as being as relevant as any other persons views or opinions, then that person is old enough to be criticized for those views or opinions. If someone is not old enough to be criticized for those views or opinions, then that person isn't old enough to have his/her views and opinions aired for all the world to hear, much less have those views and opinions taken seriously.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                              The only thing Ingraham did was tell him to quit whining about not getting into his preferred college. Good advice. Whining accomplishes nothing. It certainly doesn't raise your GPA (or make Trump any less president). He responded by throwing a tantrum which isn't exactly the best way to say "I'm a big boy now, please take me seriously". Nothing Ingraham said was a lie or defamatory. It was just good advice. If Hogg wants into a college he needs to work harder in his schoolwork, not complain. More teenagers today need to learn that. And his circumstances don't excuse him from that reality.

                              And many teens are honest and forthright but as I have said before that doesn't magically protect you from being naive.
                              Hogg stating a fact is now whining among the deplorable s. Got it. Why did the blond bimbo even comment on it?
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                                Hogg stating a fact is now whining among the deplorable s. Got it. Why did the blond bimbo even comment on it?
                                What fact is he stating, exactly? He was complaining about not getting into his preferred college. That is a statement of neither fact nor fiction but is an expression of angst. And angst doesn't raise your GPA so as I said, it's not getting him any closer to attendance.
                                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X