|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2017 2:10:10 GMT
Threatening massacres because of a temporary, limited ban for 120 days is too extreme for any civilized person. Better to take them to court. Seriously, 120 days to determine a better vetting method is the same as intolerance? And it demands blood and violence? Sorry, no. A temporary travel ban on countries that have been banned before, and for longer, doesn't sound like intolerance to me. The rest is partisan hackery, and outright lies. Frankly, if this temporary ban triggers massacres, then maybe intolerance would be justified? Who's talking about civilized people? Is there a civilized reason to threaten massacre against innocent civilians that I'm not aware of? And again, I use the word "intolerance" in its original definition of "unwilling or unable to tolerate", with the word "tolerate" being defined as "to put up with in spite of displeasure or discomfort", not the SJW definition that says because I make a fleeting comment about how a particular gay man conducts himself as a person, I'm an intolerant homophobe. My only personal opinion about the travel ban is that it sucks for people who have already been vetted and given green cards who now can't go to the US. Other than that, I'm neither for or against. I'm just saying that some people may be so provoked by it that they decide to act violently. It's not like I'm rooting for it to happen or think it would be justified in any way, if that's what you think. As I said in my first post on the subject, I hope I'm wrong, but sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if I wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 6, 2017 8:16:35 GMT
Threatening massacres because of a temporary, limited ban for 120 days is too extreme for any civilized person. Better to take them to court. Seriously, 120 days to determine a better vetting method is the same as intolerance? And it demands blood and violence? Sorry, no. A temporary travel ban on countries that have been banned before, and for longer, doesn't sound like intolerance to me. The rest is partisan hackery, and outright lies. Frankly, if this temporary ban triggers massacres, then maybe intolerance would be justified? Who's talking about civilized people? Is there a civilized reason to threaten massacre against innocent civilians that I'm not aware of? And again, I use the word "intolerance" in its original definition of "unwilling or unable to tolerate", with the word "tolerate" being defined as "to put up with in spite of displeasure or discomfort", not the SJW definition that says because I make a fleeting comment about how a particular gay man conducts himself as a person, I'm an intolerant homophobe. I think I understand, I'm just stating it badly. Sorry, I haven't had a lot of sleep in the last three days and I'm about to crash (hopefully). What follows may also not make sense either, but...I'll give it a shot. I guess I'm tired of the argument that the travel ban will provoke some traveler to violence. If a simple 120 day delay in your travel plans (or a friend's plans, or a random stranger's plans) makes you snap and massacre people, then the ban is obviously needed to find people who think like that and get them dealt with. It's blaming the victim. It's nothing more than childish bullying the rest of society on a more deadly scale. "Give us what we want or else someone might hurt you because you're intolerant". Yeah, the fact that good people are inconvenienced by the ban is unfortunate. Exemptions are/were being granted, if I recall correctly, so that might help. Yeah, I understand. And I guess what I'm saying is that if someone feels provoked and decides to act violently, that actually justifies the new vetting to try to stop that person from acting violently over here. If they act violently over there because of it, well, that's kind of hard to control. And if something as overall trivial as a travel delay makes you violent, you'll probably flip out on something else, eventually. Like a certain cartoon collection, or something else trivial. Let me illustrate with a usual bad analogy: I like the breakfasts at the Chick-fil-a restaurant chain. They have some nice bagel and chicken sandwiches in the morning. They are owned by a deeply religious family, and are always closed on Sunday. If this is their policy, I can't demand they change it for me just because I really want one of their bagels. I can't say "Open up or someone might break in to get a bagel". If I go to that closed Chick-fil-a and break a window to steal my bagel, I can't claim they provoked me by not being open. It's a ludicrous example, but the fault would be with me, not the restaurant who set their rules. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2017 15:07:04 GMT
I know I said it before, but I will mention it again.
the contention is not that a disguntled customer will break in on sunday to make themselves a free breakfast. the contention is that if they decide to demand accommodation of their religious beliefs to refuse to allow their company healthcare plan to cover contraception; then pro choicers who don't like chicken for breakfast, anyway, will use that as an excuse to demand that other people who don't like that they are closed on sunday also boycott the restaurant.
the travel ban (which has been placed on hold by a federal judge) is not being accused of provoking attack by a disgruntled traveler - it is accused of being able to be used as a recruiting tool by those who have other reasons for wanting to provoke an attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2017 20:43:51 GMT
I know I said it before, but I will mention it again. the contention is not that a disguntled customer will break in on sunday to make themselves a free breakfast. the contention is that if they decide to demand accommodation of their religious beliefs to refuse to allow their company healthcare plan to cover contraception; then pro choicers who don't like chicken for breakfast, anyway, will use that as an excuse to demand that other people who don't like that they are closed on sunday also boycott the restaurant. the travel ban (which has been placed on hold by a federal judge) is not being accused of provoking attack by a disgruntled traveler - it is accused of being able to be used as a recruiting tool by those who have other reasons for wanting to provoke an attack. Exactly. And I'm actually not so much worried about a traveler wigging out in a Somalian airport as I'm worried about someone already in the US seeing it as an excuse to do some damage. You can't keep one of those out with a travel ban, because they're already there. ( Small addendum: I'm not saying you shouldn't impose a travel ban because you might provoke someone, just that it would be wise to keep in mind that it might happen. We should never not do something we feel is right because of fear that some loon might go off the deep end. We should, however, be aware that such loons do exist and that things like this might be what pushes them over the edge. Don't stop doing what you're doing because you're afraid of them. Just know that they're out there.) And another thing about the travel ban: Does the nope administration really think a person or group that wants to carry out a large, coordinated attack on US soil won't go to great lengths to either provide fake documents, or just get into the country in other illegal ways? How many stretches of US coast and border are largely unguarded? Would it be all that difficult for someone with a bit of cash to work with to go to a neighboring country with less strict rules (Canada, Mexico or one of the smaller Caribbean island nations), hire a boat and land on a beach somewhere? The border patrol can't possibly watch every foot of Canadian or Mexican border either, so there's bound to be some places where you could just walk across under the cover of darkness. All those illegal immigrants from Mexico have to be coming in some way, don't they? If I was of Middle Eastern descent and wanted to carry out a large scale attack on US soil, I'd learn Spanish and pay Mexican or Cuban traffickers to create a false identity for me and get me in under the radar. Black hair, brown skin, speaks Spanish. Why would the border patrol not believe I was Mexican or Cuban and just send me back if they caught me? Just sayin'... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2017 20:49:02 GMT
I know I said it before, but I will mention it again. the contention is not that a disguntled customer will break in on sunday to make themselves a free breakfast. the contention is that if they decide to demand accommodation of their religious beliefs to refuse to allow their company healthcare plan to cover contraception; then pro choicers who don't like chicken for breakfast, anyway, will use that as an excuse to demand that other people who don't like that they are closed on sunday also boycott the restaurant. the travel ban (which has been placed on hold by a federal judge) is not being accused of provoking attack by a disgruntled traveler - it is accused of being able to be used as a recruiting tool by those who have other reasons for wanting to provoke an attack. Exactly. And I'm actually not so much worried about a traveler wigging out in a Somalian airport as I'm worried about someone already in the US seeing it as an excuse to do some damage. You can't keep one of those out with a travel ban, because they're already there. And another thing about the travel ban: Does the nope administration really think a person or group that wants to carry out a large, coordinated attack on US soil won't go to great lengths to either provide fake documents, or just get into the country in other illegal ways? How many stretches of US coast and border are largely unguarded? Would it be all that difficult for someone with a bit of cash to work with to go to a neighboring country with less strict rules (Canada, Mexico or one of the smaller Caribbean island nations), hire a boat and land on a beach somewhere? The border patrol can't possibly watch every foot of Canadian or Mexican border either, so there's bound to be some places where you could just walk across under the cover of darkness. All those illegal immigrants from Mexico have to be coming in some way, don't they? If I was of Middle Eastern descent and wanted to carry out a large scale attack on US soil, I'd learn Spanish and pay Mexican or Cuban traffickers to create a false identity for me and get me in under the radar. Black hair, brown skin, speaks Spanish. Why would the border patrol not believe I was Mexican or Cuban and just send me back if they caught me? Just sayin'... or just enroll in a university. if you major in a hard science, they will even teach you how to make the bomb. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2017 21:20:33 GMT
Exactly. And I'm actually not so much worried about a traveler wigging out in a Somalian airport as I'm worried about someone already in the US seeing it as an excuse to do some damage. You can't keep one of those out with a travel ban, because they're already there. And another thing about the travel ban: Does the nope administration really think a person or group that wants to carry out a large, coordinated attack on US soil won't go to great lengths to either provide fake documents, or just get into the country in other illegal ways? How many stretches of US coast and border are largely unguarded? Would it be all that difficult for someone with a bit of cash to work with to go to a neighboring country with less strict rules (Canada, Mexico or one of the smaller Caribbean island nations), hire a boat and land on a beach somewhere? The border patrol can't possibly watch every foot of Canadian or Mexican border either, so there's bound to be some places where you could just walk across under the cover of darkness. All those illegal immigrants from Mexico have to be coming in some way, don't they? If I was of Middle Eastern descent and wanted to carry out a large scale attack on US soil, I'd learn Spanish and pay Mexican or Cuban traffickers to create a false identity for me and get me in under the radar. Black hair, brown skin, speaks Spanish. Why would the border patrol not believe I was Mexican or Cuban and just send me back if they caught me? Just sayin'... or just enroll in a university. if you major in a hard science, they will even teach you how to make the bomb. I think that's part of the reason why the nope administration wanted this travel ban. They think it's too easy for those kind of people to get in. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2017 21:45:12 GMT
or just enroll in a university. if you major in a hard science, they will even teach you how to make the bomb. I think that's part of the reason why the nope administration wanted this travel ban. They think it's too easy for those kind of people to get in. problem is, it is YUUGEly badly written, to the point it blocked a retired government member from, I think Denmark because he had been to one of the 7 countries recently. my mistake - norwegian. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2017 22:20:39 GMT
As has been the case so many times throughout history, good intentions overshadowed by bad execution. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2017 22:29:29 GMT
As has been the case so many times throughout history, good intentions overshadowed by bad execution. allegedly, Bannon, at the same time, had nope sign an executive order placing him on the national security council. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jun 28, 2017 17:04:53 GMT
I don't really know what to comment on this, but I felt I had to share it. I sincerely hope that the "Bullies" learn and become better people from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 29, 2017 7:41:41 GMT
"Part" of me wants the bullies "Outed" and put to shame.
I do however applaud the way that was done.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 29, 2017 14:05:25 GMT
"Part" of me wants the bullies "Outed" and put to shame. I do however applaud the way that was done. wonder how many bullies you could charge with reckless endangerment before the rest learned a lesson... |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 30, 2017 14:45:30 GMT
I doubt we can do much to stop bullies like these.
Kids seem naturally cruel against anyone they perceive as different, or a "weak link".
Some theorize that it's simple puberty, and the intensity the biochemical changes bring to their emotions. Both the bullies and the bullied are feeling things for the first time, and it's easy to get lost in both irrational cruelty and self destructive impulses. It can, quite simply, drive someone to do insane things where they don't even realize what they're doing is wrong (the legal textbook definition of insanity).
That's beside all the societal pressures and other emotions life throws at you.
Eventually, the vast majority achieve both control over their emotions to not be a threat to themselves or others, but there are always exceptions.
And that's a sad, sad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 15:04:22 GMT
I doubt we can do much to stop bullies like these. Kids seem naturally cruel against anyone they perceive as different, or a "weak link". Some theorize that it's simple puberty, and the intensity the biochemical changes bring to their emotions. Both the bullies and the bullied are feeling things for the first time, and it's easy to get lost in both irrational cruelty and self destructive impulses. It can, quite simply, drive someone to do insane things where they don't even realize what they're doing is wrong (the legal textbook definition of insanity). That's beside all the societal pressures and other emotions life throws at you. Eventually, the vast majority achieve both control over their emotions to not be a threat to themselves or others, but there are always exceptions. And that's a sad, sad thing. what's really sad is that our culture is skewing more and more towards normalizing bullying, as long as it is the "other" that is being bullied. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 30, 2017 15:06:43 GMT
I ran across this story, and it raised so many moral issues with me, I also felt I had to share it. Court rules hospital can withdraw life support for sick baby Charlie GardThe gist of it is that the child was born with a terrible genetic condition, and almost certainly will die from it. The parents want to take him to America to attempt an experimental treatment that may help him. The doctors think the condition has already done enough structural damage to the child that even if successful, the treatment will do nothing more than prolong the child's suffering. The court has agreed with the doctors. The child's life support will be ended today. The parents also requested that the child be released to them so they can take him home so that he can die there, surrounded by friends and family, instead of the hospital. They have been refused this by the authorities. The moral questions are numerous. Does the government have authority to make such a life or death decision over the life of the child? Shouldn't that be the parent's decision? Does the chance of the experimental therapy working outweigh the cost of the child's potential future suffering? How does one determine when a life is no longer worth living? And, from a broader perspective, who has the right to make that decision: the doctors, parents, government, or child? Personally, I find this entire situation heartbreaking. I usually err on the side of trying everything possible before giving up, but in this case, this may mean torturing a child unnecessarily. I also have trouble with a government going against the wishes of the parents in this case, but again--if the kid is constantly suffering and in an irrecoverable state, would additional treatment be a form of child abuse? Lastly, I don't see the benefit of keeping the child in the hospital if you're turning off life support. Sending him home with the parents seems like the best thing to do for the family, in that case. The fact that life support is being disconnected today makes it all the more poignant. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 30, 2017 15:16:01 GMT
what's really sad is that our culture is skewing more and more towards normalizing bullying, and long as it is the "other" that it being bullied. Do you really think so? I honestly don't necessarily believe this, at least in school. I never saw the organized anti-bully campaigns when I was a kid. And the general acceptance of "others" today is greater than it was back then. Frankly, I hope it's more than lip service (especially the anti-bullying programs). On the other hand, we didn't have the trolling that goes on now via the internet (being that widespread use of the internet didn't exist). For example, I can't imagine an openly gay or transgendered child being as accepted back then as they are today (and yes, they still suffer, but it's better than before). Heck, being called "gay" was a relatively vicious insult back then, whether boy or girl. I wonder if there are any real statistics on bullying over the years? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 15:20:57 GMT
I ran across this story, and it raised so many moral issues with me, I also felt I had to share it. Court rules hospital can withdraw life support for sick baby Charlie GardThe gist of it is that the child was born with a terrible genetic condition, and almost certainly will die from it. The parents want to take him to America to attempt an experimental treatment that may help him. The doctors think the condition has already done enough structural damage to the child that even if successful, the treatment will do nothing more than prolong the child's suffering. The court has agreed with the doctors. The child's life support will be ended today. The parents also requested that the child be released to them so they can take him home so that he can die there, surrounded by friends and family, instead of the hospital. They have been refused this by the authorities. The moral questions are numerous. Does the government have authority to make such a life or death decision over the life of the child? Shouldn't that be the parent's decision? Does the chance of the experimental therapy working outweigh the cost of the child's potential future suffering? How does one determine when a life is no longer worth living? And, from a broader perspective, who has the right to make that decision: the doctors, parents, government, or child? Personally, I find this entire situation heartbreaking. I usually err on the side of trying everything possible before giving up, but in this case, this may mean torturing a child unnecessarily. I also have trouble with a government going against the wishes of the parents in this case, but again--if the kid is constantly suffering and in an irrecoverable state, would additional treatment be a form of child abuse? Lastly, I don't see the benefit of keeping the child in the hospital if you're turning off life support. Sending him home with the parents seems like the best thing to do for the family, in that case. The fact that life support is being disconnected today makes it all the more poignant. you may remember I've mentioned I'm part of a group that is tracking trends in futile care. - perhaps best described as wasting medical resources keeping dead people undead. so as to the moral questions: does being a parent automatically confer the medical expertise to understand a child's condition, and make better decisions than the professional who is theoretically educated in understanding conditions? Is the change of the experimental therapy working more than just a blind hope and an empty promise? in a situation like this, there is no "win" possible. it is one of the prices we pay for advanced medical technology. while we can save more people, the ones we can't save trouble us all the more. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 15:34:47 GMT
Bullying is a fact of life. It changes in it's manifestations from early childhood to adult life, but it is still bullying. No matter how hard we try, we will never eliminate bullies. While I'm in favor of schools trying to control bullying, I also believe that its the schools responsibility to teach the victims of bullying how to deal with bullies. Bullying does not stop when you leave school. Dealing with bullies is a skill they will need the rest of their lives.
The only way I've found to deal with bullies is you have to hit them back and hit them back hard. Not necessarily physically, but unless they immediately pay a price for their actions, they will just continue bullying.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2017 15:36:27 GMT
what's really sad is that our culture is skewing more and more towards normalizing bullying, and long as it is the "other" that it being bullied. Do you really think so? I honestly don't necessarily believe this, at least in school. I never saw the organized anti-bully campaigns when I was a kid. And the general acceptance of "others" today is greater than it was back then. Frankly, I hope it's more than lip service (especially the anti-bullying programs). On the other hand, we didn't have the trolling that goes on now via the internet (being that widespread use of the internet didn't exist). For example, I can't imagine an openly gay or transgendered child being as accepted back then as they are today (and yes, they still suffer, but it's better than before). Heck, being called "gay" was a relatively vicious insult back then, whether boy or girl. I wonder if there are any real statistics on bullying over the years? I think awareness has increased, in the manner that in the past, big kids beating up little kids was bullying, but not much else. it wasn't well handled, back then, either - the usual reaction was to assume the little kid would "toughen up." now we have a much broader definition of bullying, and high profile anti bullying campaigns, but at the same time, we are continually coming up with new ways to divide into cliques and dehumanize those who do not belong to our clique. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 30, 2017 15:59:31 GMT
I ran across this story, and it raised so many moral issues with me, I also felt I had to share it. Court rules hospital can withdraw life support for sick baby Charlie GardThe gist of it is that the child was born with a terrible genetic condition, and almost certainly will die from it. The parents want to take him to America to attempt an experimental treatment that may help him. The doctors think the condition has already done enough structural damage to the child that even if successful, the treatment will do nothing more than prolong the child's suffering. The court has agreed with the doctors. The child's life support will be ended today. The parents also requested that the child be released to them so they can take him home so that he can die there, surrounded by friends and family, instead of the hospital. They have been refused this by the authorities. The moral questions are numerous. Does the government have authority to make such a life or death decision over the life of the child? Shouldn't that be the parent's decision? Does the chance of the experimental therapy working outweigh the cost of the child's potential future suffering? How does one determine when a life is no longer worth living? And, from a broader perspective, who has the right to make that decision: the doctors, parents, government, or child? Personally, I find this entire situation heartbreaking. I usually err on the side of trying everything possible before giving up, but in this case, this may mean torturing a child unnecessarily. I also have trouble with a government going against the wishes of the parents in this case, but again--if the kid is constantly suffering and in an irrecoverable state, would additional treatment be a form of child abuse? Lastly, I don't see the benefit of keeping the child in the hospital if you're turning off life support. Sending him home with the parents seems like the best thing to do for the family, in that case. The fact that life support is being disconnected today makes it all the more poignant. you may remember I've mentioned I'm part of a group that is tracking trends in futile care. - perhaps best described as wasting medical resources keeping dead people undead. so as to the moral questions: does being a parent automatically confer the medical expertise to understand a child's condition, and make better decisions than the professional who is theoretically educated in understanding conditions? Is the change of the experimental therapy working more than just a blind hope and an empty promise? in a situation like this, there is no "win" possible. it is one of the prices we pay for advanced medical technology. while we can save more people, the ones we can't save trouble us all the more. I can see a medical institution saying we've done all we can and we won't do anything more. I can also see the courts siding with that decision. What I can not accept is the courts saying that parents can't seek other treatment, no matter how remote the results of that treatment may be. That's just not a decision the courts should be allowed to make. |
|
