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

  • #46
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    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.
    You take the views of a bought and paid for Senator seriously?
    "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


    • #47
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      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.
      What group is calling for an end to the EPA entirely? There are plenty of people saying "Enough! Stop making tighter pollution regulations..." But, I don't hear people seriously saying "Abolish the EPA, we don't need limits on pollution."
      The Chinese are doing what we, and Europe, did say 100 or 150 years ago. So is India. They are industrializing as rapidly as possible. As they become industrialized and affluent, they will start controlling their pollution more and more, just as we and Europe did. In fact, China has already started doing that.
      The NRA is the same way. They want limits on gun regulations, not a complete lack of regulations. Only the most obtuse and ignorant think otherwise.
      In fact, the NRA is not opposed to regulating or outlawing bump stocks. They have even outlawed them at their own shooting ranges voluntarily without government regulation.

      https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-ranges-243495

      The market left alone will regulate itself to the extent that it can maximize its profit. But, not all companies will do so equally. Some will be greedy and take every shortcut. Others will act more responsibly. One of the reasons unions have fallen so far into disfavor is that there are few companies today that have such onerous conditions of employment that workers feel the need for one.

      There is a balance between pollution, safety, and other regulations, and people. The problem is when you have groups outside the market controlling these factors (eg., the government like the EPA and OSHA), those groups have ZERO vested interest in profitability or the social cost of their regulations. Their position is more regulation is needed and they'll justify that however they can.
      That's simply Parkenson's Law at work. A bureaucracy will expand continuously until it becomes so burdensome that whatever it controls collapses under the weight of its inefficiency.
      If I'm a manager at the EPA (or other bureaucracy private or government) the way I can get promotions and raises is by demonstrating that I'm doing more and more. That means finding ways to increase the number of employees I control, increasing my budget and spending, or showing that I'm doing more and more.

      Maybe you should read more.

      https://www.amazon.com/People-Pengui...le+or+penguins

      https://www.amazon.com/Parkinsons-La...%E2%80%99s+law

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        Have you actually reviewed his apparentley 'whiney' tweets?

        https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobil...ssion.amp.html

        Comment


        • #49
          https://www.facebook.com/reallyameri...743704/?type=3
          "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


          • #50
            Strawman fallacy. I am not ridiculing them.

            Appeal to pathos fallacy. Presenting victim status as a shield from honest criticism.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              What group is calling for an end to the EPA entirely? There are plenty of people saying "Enough! Stop making tighter pollution regulations..." But, I don't hear people seriously saying "Abolish the EPA, we don't need limits on pollution."...

              Bold mine

              This one

              http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...t-rid-epa.html

              It's time to get rid of the EPA

              ...

              Bill Wilson is a board member of Americans for Limited Government.
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                You take the views of a bought and paid for Senator seriously?
                That's the best you can come up with?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
                  That's the best you can come up with?
                  I find the corruption of our government a very serious problem. I would hope others do as well.
                  "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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    The NRA is the same way. They want limits on gun regulations, not a complete lack of regulations. Only the most obtuse and ignorant think otherwise.
                    In fact, the NRA is not opposed to regulating or outlawing bump stocks. They have even outlawed them at their own shooting ranges voluntarily without government regulation.
                    The NRA is BS!

                    If their position is that they support outlawing bumb stocks VOLUNTARILY, then they are AGAINST regulations that outlaw bumb stocks. Regulations that ask people to do something voluntarily are not regulations. They are recommendations! This is just smoke and mirrors which by the way, a tactic used very often by the NRA especially in periods of crisis (like soon after massacres) when they desperately want to gain time until things become cold...

                    http://thehill.com/regulation/355183...ng-bump-stocks

                    NRA opposes legislation banning bump stocks


                    The National Rifle Association (NRA) on Thursday said it opposes legislation in both the House and the Senate that would ban the use of bump stocks, a device that can be used to increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire and was found in the hotel room of the Las Vegas shooter.

                    “The NRA opposes the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,” Jennifer Baker, the director of public affairs for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told The Hill, referencing legislation in both chambers.

                    "These bills are intentionally overreaching and would ban commonly owned firearm accessories," Baker continued.
                    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


                    • #55
                      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.
                      That 'something' was a personal attack by a national figure with a daily national platform. If she want's to go after his political views and maybe take apart his argument, I see no problem with that. That's a debate. However, using her free speech to make a personal attack should be out of bounds.

                      On the flip side, this kid used his free speech to call for a boycott. Are you saying that free speech only works one way? If she can't take the heat, maybe she needs to take a vacation. Oh, wait...
                      Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                        That 'something' was a personal attack by a national figure with a daily national platform. If she want's to go after his political views and maybe take apart his argument, I see no problem with that. That's a debate. However, using her free speech to make a personal attack should be out of bounds.

                        On the flip side, this kid used his free speech to call for a boycott. Are you saying that free speech only works one way? If she can't take the heat, maybe she needs to take a vacation. Oh, wait...
                        All that aside, free speech is for everyone, but I personally, don't like some snot nosed, little pipsqueak (who hasn't lived an adult life yet)telling me what laws we should have or what rights I should have, just to get national attention in the news.
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                          All that aside, free speech is for everyone, but I personally, don't like some snot nosed, little pipsqueak (who hasn't lived an adult life yet)telling me what laws we should have or what rights I should have, just to get national attention in the news.
                          What burns me with him is when he gets smacked down for wanting to be some sort of aspiring Michael Moore, he snivels and attacks his critics as if they weren't even allowed to think of questioning him. He needs to grow up, and grow a thicker skin before he goes on the public stage and rabble rousing.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...g-s-fake-news/

                            Anyone claiming he wasn’t at the school, I’ll appreciate a full retraction of your ridiculous comments clearly motivated by political partisanship.
                            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Not really.

                              As for ignoring them, no we should remember them as we remember anyone who dies. What makes them special compared to someone who is murdered by a thug that robs them? Or, someone who is killed by a drunk driver? Volume doesn't make them special.

                              And, yes, David Hogg's opinion matters even less because he wasn't there and has both pretended he was, and alluded that he was. He is capitalizing on simply being a student at Parkland High. That doesn't make him special, nor does it make his opinion special.
                              Your statement was erroneous and demonstrably false. You maligned a high school kid PRESENT at the shooting and believe false news stories simply because you despise him. Retract your claims that are demonstrably false or lose every single ounce of credibility.
                              First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                You misunderstood me...

                                I did not ask if we should ignore the victims. I asked if it makes sense to argue that we should ignore (or dismiss) Hogg's loss. Losing a friend or a neighbor or a schoolmate or a teacher IS traumatic. So why should not respect the fact that even though this guy was not at the school during the shooting, he still had to endure a traumatic experience?
                                Except the claim that he wasn’t there is conservative propaganda. We should fact check any of their tripe before blindly believing they’ve actually done any research.
                                First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X