Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 20:46:43 GMT -5
Nothing more to say about it at this point. Diagnosis: It was an act of war, but fortunately highly proscribed. Prognosis: 99.9% chance of "Pres. Assad" launching another chemical weapons attack, Sen. McCain wringing his hands with glee for at least half a week, and... (what came after "Mission Accomplished?" in Iraq again?)... "welcomed as liberators with flowers" or something like that? I trust that is not a serious question. George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished!" on May 1, 2003. That was mere weeks after the war began. It lasted until December, 2011. Eight and a half years later. Taking into account Trump's noted laser-like focus and attention to detail, we should be able to unwind ourselves from the Syrian quagmire he is itching to get us into by about, oh, 2031? It's a semi-serious question. You remember the parade of post-invasion justifications for the Iraq quagmire. "We'll be greeted as liberators with flowers," was, I believe, the first one after "WMDs". It was succeeded by "the hunt for Osama bin Laden" (which subsequently moved to Afghanistan), "making the world safe for peace and democracy", then "cut and run", "the surge", and I lost track after that. Just wanted to check that I got the order right.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 20:20:22 GMT -5
1. Good idea. Assuming Pres. Assad is gassing his own people and destroying his own military campaign, killing the citizens he's sending to populate deserted cities, and antagonizing the world (as well as his only ally) for no discernible reason, this is still a far better option than what we're doing. Pretend it isn't happening? A bit extreme, but yet another course of action better than what we're doing. Accuse the UK government(As the Russians are doing) of gassing Syrians? While the UK accusing itself of gassing Syrians strikes me as a truly terrible idea, I admit it's still a better idea than wading into Iraq 3.0. You're 4/4 on "courses of action wiser than waging this war". I won't ask you to agree with me now, but I will ask that you please bear this conversation in mind when (not 'if'; when) the next report of chemical weapons attacks by al Assad comes in, and ask yourself at that time: "Wait a minute. Didn't we cripple his ability to produce chemical weapons? Didn't we prove to him we'll gladly use chemical weapons as a pretext to raze any targets in Damascus we want to? Isn't he aware his use of chemical weapons is severely undermining Russia, his staunch ally? Why is he acting in precisely the way he needs to act in order for the US, the UK, and various proxies desperate to prop up the failing petrodollar to wipe him and his whole petrodollar-threatening regime out without raising too many eyebrows?" Perhaps he is totally insane, and the Russians simply don't care. It's not inconceivable. But he might not be the insane one in this war.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 19:43:45 GMT -5
This must be thread about the President of the United States threatening and ultimately bombing another country because there is, less than 24 hours after the attack, no discussion of the United States launching a missile attack. Merica! Nothing more to say about it at this point. Diagnosis: It was an act of war, but fortunately highly proscribed. Prognosis: 99.9% chance of "Pres. Assad" launching another chemical weapons attack, Sen. McCain wringing his hands with glee for at least half a week, and... (what came after "Mission Accomplished?" in Iraq again?)... "welcomed as liberators with flowers" or something like that?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 19:13:20 GMT -5
He'd claim pro-life Christians skin babies alive and wear them to church if he thought anyone'd believe him. You know this. Don't feed the trolls, madam.
As I recall from my religious studies, the Christians were the people most likely to be skinned alive (flayed).
Now as for my comment to shooby...well we go way back to her gleeful support of "getting the bad man" in Iraq. Unfortunately the collateral damage of that horrific mistake made by conservative Christians was the blowing to smithereens hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqui women and children. Where I come from being pro-life would indicate all life, including randomly dismembered iraquis. But alas. Now she is cheering on the bombs again and has you to talk about skinning babies alive as her wing man. Good for you.
So where is the insult. That's just truth being discussed unlike your statement indicating I'm a troll when I am not. I post my own way and would never kow tow to the likes of you. And isn't calling aomeone a troll a violation of something oh sainted moderator?
Trolling is a pattern of behaviour, characterized by a desire to antagonize a group or groups of people regardless of utility or relevance. Not trolling:Bob: Pres. Reagan was great. Jim Not-a-Troll: Reagan was terrible. His economic policies nearly destroyed...
Ted: We need to fight climate change. Jim Not-a-Troll: What a fool thing to say. You're clearly not aware of what that means.
Jill: A defunct satellite is going to fall to Earth today. Jim Not-a-Troll: *lol* Maybe we'll get lucky and it will wipe out John Bolton. Trolling:Bob: Pres. Reagan was great. Tom the Troll: Reagan was loser, but what else would you expect from an ex-governor of California? Land of the golden losers.
Ted: We need to fight climate change. Tom the Troll: Why don't you and your California friends pack up your whole preachy, overregulated state and move to a yurt in Nepal. HEYOHHHH!
Jill: A defunct satellite is going to fall to Earth today. Tom the Troll: The Californians they're interviewing on TV are all saying, "I hope it doesn't land in California." Of course they hope that. We all know every good and loyal card-carrying Californian's wish is for the satellite to wipe out Texas or another red state. Perhaps all of us should take time to review our post record from the past 120 days, checking for instances of compulsive antagonism, in an effort to "see ourselves clearly" (as a recent thread by Artemis implores us). ETA: This would include posters who hypothetically might be tempted to antagonize liberals for no reason at all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 10:08:55 GMT -5
Hack my account and impersonate me like that again, billisonboard , and I'll have no other recourse but to have you banned. It's your choice. You obviously have me confused with someone with some level of technical competence. It is a good day for me when I can access my own account without problems. I have evidence proving it was you. ...that I can't release to the public, for security reasons.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 8:42:31 GMT -5
Hack my account and impersonate me like that again, billisonboard, and I'll have no other recourse but to have you banned. It's your choice.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 8:40:53 GMT -5
Virgil loves snow leopards.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 8:22:43 GMT -5
“When a U.S. President starts announcing 'Mission Accomplished' -- that is the time to expect more war.” - Alastair Williamson
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 8:18:31 GMT -5
He'd claim pro-life Christians skin babies alive and wear them to church if he thought anyone'd believe him. You know this. Don't feed the trolls, madam. Well, I am not sure why these types of constant insults are allowed here? For the same reason that e.g. "Liberals are morons." and "Republicans hate women." are allowed. They're directed at groups of people who don't enjoy special protections under the law, and YMAM doesn't go beyond what the rules require in censoring such statements, regardless of truth or accuracy. It's in the interest of free speech, and it's a good policy.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 8:11:53 GMT -5
Damascus, if anything seems to be breathing a sigh of relief You're basing this on what? Or do you mean in the figurative sense of being relieved the US didn't raze Damascus?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 14, 2018 7:32:25 GMT -5
I wish I could “like” this a zillion times. The 50’s were great for white males. For the rest of us, not so much. When I was growing up, my parents' best friends had a Downs child. When the mother went into the hospital for an appendectomy, the father slipped the surgeon a few extra bucks. "While you're in there, take out her uterus. I don't want another Downs child." ....and he did. The woman was not consulted. Men were able to make medical decisions for their wives. It wasn't uncommon. She was devastated when she found out what he did. So, yeah.....the 50s were great for straight white men. For the rest of us, not so much. Heap up your anecdotes. It obviously makes you feel better. www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html (bold by me): Yet the biggest surprise would have come if you had asked her just one more question. Given all the evidence of women running corporations and universities, hospitals, media empires, branches of government, army divisions, and countries, do you think women in the future will be happier?
Of course they will be happier, she would have said. With all these opportunities and achievements, how could they not be?
Well, as it turns out, too easily. ...
First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are. (The one and only exception: African-American women are now slightly happier than they were back in 1972, although they remain less happy than African American men.)
...
And, in case you’re wondering, this finding is neither unique to this one study, nor is it unique to the United States. In the last couple of years, the results from six major studies of happiness have been released: ...
All told, more than 1.3 million men and women have been surveyed over the last 40 years, both here in the U.S. and in developed countries around the world. Wherever researchers have been able to collect reliable data on happiness, the finding is always the same: greater educational, political, and employment opportunities have corresponded to decreases in life happiness for women, as compared to men. It's unfortunate the article doesn't take the data all the way back to the 1950's, since the trend is the same. But even with the shorter series, quite the conundrum: even with the horrid conditions women faced decades ago, and the overwhelming prevalence of unreported atrocities, relative to today (an era in which domestic violence is all but totally nonexistent), women were considerably happier.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 21:49:09 GMT -5
Depends on the results, doesn't it? It could be money well spent, or just money spent. ... Yes? You do realize that despite Richard's name appearing in Reply #289, the comment isn't about him or directed to him? If so, your follow-up is going over my head. If not, just... never mind. It's the weekend.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 21:34:36 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 21:32:13 GMT -5
Time to kill some more innocent women and children to satisfy the pro-life blood lust of American Christians. BOOM Skakalaka You laying that on France too? He'd claim pro-life Christians skin babies alive and wear them to church if he thought anyone'd believe him. You know this. Don't feed the trolls, madam.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 21:22:18 GMT -5
Richard had to leave to attend a symposium on how to detect satire. Money well spent. Can't say that yet. How do you mean?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 21:16:32 GMT -5
Probably a coincidence, but painfully symbolic. I personally can't let this one go either. Pres. al Assad has zero reason to deploy chemical weapons at this time, and 100 excellent reasons not to. His using them at this juncture makes absolutely no sense. It makes so little sense, in fact, that we're limited to just three choices: - al Assad has gone well and truly insane, and is actively trying to destroy his own military campaign and presidency
- the chemical weapons attack is real, but perpetrated by forces not under al Assad's control
- the chemical weapons attack is, as the Russians contend, a false flag intended to motivate US involvement in Syria
These are the only three choices. All three of them are shaky, but they're the only three choices. Hence let's explore them. ...Or not. In all but one of the articles I've read from Western sources (props to the Independent in the UK, who bucked the trend), I haven't seen a single reporter ask " Cui bono?" for these attacks. Not a single one. I did read that Ron Paul was getting airtime somewhere, and that a FOX commentator (Tucker Carlson, I believe) breached the issue in one episode (as well as addressing the supreme idiocy of the US wading further into Syria at this point), hence I can't claim Western journalism is 100% stone-cold dead. Even so, too little, too late. The US is presently firing on Damascus. We can only pray Russia doesn't take out the US carrier and start WWIII. The faint silver lining is that if WWIII does start and the world is obliterated in a nuclear holocaust, at least it will take the Western media out with the rest of us.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -5
snubbing burnings
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 20:29:35 GMT -5
Or it could not. But Richard doesn't want to admit that it was a stupid thing to say, so he has decided to take his ball and go home, just like suggested above. Good thing you are still here to defend his asinine statement.
Richard had to leave to attend a symposium on how to detect satire. Money well spent.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Ban It?
Apr 13, 2018 20:26:03 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 20:26:03 GMT -5
Because even though it says "not suitable for under 36 months" on the label..... They have been given to younger kids The tot has eaten the chocolate then eaten the plastic toy........ and died. It has broken laws about toys having small parts. That's actually not why it was banned. The reason is more technical and obscure. US law doesn't allow sale of edible products containing embedded, non-edible items, even if the embedded item is too large to be swallowed (such as the capsule in a Kinder egg). Mars Corp., Ferrero's chief competitor in the US, shot down all attempts to get Kinder eggs excepted (on the basis that the embedded capsule doesn't actually pose a choking hazard). They came up with a bunch of frivolous arguments you can hear about in the video. Hence the ban persisted. As for the ban being lifted, weltschmerz is going to have to cite her source. I'm finding a lot of 2013 articles that talk about Kinder knock-offs (with sub-par toys and chocolate) being permitted in the US, as well as vaguely Kinder-egg-like alternative products by Ferrero being released in 2016, but nothing saying that the bona fide Ferrero Kinder eggs the rest of the world knows and loves are legal in the US.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 20:01:17 GMT -5
You're assuming reporting of domestic crime in recent times is significantly better, but the data only support this hypothesis for very recent years (2014+) and researchers invoke it to explain a spike well in excess of the e.g. 275% figure.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 19:45:22 GMT -5
but isn't this what already happens? Some do seem to check their consumption habits while others just seem to eat up everything put in front of them. A good many people are genuinely incapable of filtering, since pop media is the entity that's taught them what they ought to digest and not digest. In a sense: "If it's out there, and legal, it must be OK to consume. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be legal and nobody would want to consume it anyway." It's amazing at how completely people's reservations about imbibing death, suffering, carnage, misery, tragedy, scandal, vengeance, pride, hatred, etc. can be disarmed by adding in just a bit of good. "Curious George," as I call it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 19:26:04 GMT -5
Virgil, many of the violent crimes against women weren't reported, because there was no point. Fail. Precisely the opposite. Stats carry caveats that serious crimes are relatively under-reported today since people have less trust in the police and less faith that reporting will lead to action or a resolution. It also bears mentioning that homicide rates--nominally comparable between the two periods--are skewed significantly in favour of present day by superior medical technology reducing the number of deaths from potentially fatal attacks. Finally, we also can't dismiss this inconvenient truth: Whether it's a consequence of crime, a causative factor, or (most likely) both, I'll take the 1950's data point, thank you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 17:21:47 GMT -5
You good people can cling to the 2018 theories on what ought to reduce crime, ought to increase happiness, ought to balance budgets, ought to reduce suicide and addiction, ought to bring peace between the sexes, ought to put the nation on an upward trajectory... But what can any practical soul do except appeal to a time when crime was low, happiness great, budgets balanced, suicide and addiction rare, the sexes at peace, and the nation on an upward trajectory rather than plunging into the abyss. Not that every solitary aspect of that era contributed to its superior qualities. It's hard to say sometimes whether the overt racial hatred of those years is truly worse than the ghettoized, violence-ridden, dependency-engineering mess of the present day, with the seething resentment of both sides bubbling over the lip and into sight just occasionally, but I'll give you guys that one. Black/white race relations in the US today are better than they were in the 1950's, and racial hatred less commonplace. Given the present trajectory of race relations, that's a mighty shaky peg to hang your hat on, though. Except, it isn't true. Violent crime against women was higher than it is now, the murder rate is comparable and personal crimes, like muggings, were higher. Quit making shit up. You're the one in error, madam. www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfmYou'll have to put in the search parameters yourself, and the list only goes back to 1960, which is unfortunate because charts that go back as far as the 1950's show the crime statistics were significantly better for that decade than for the 1960's. But, some highlights: Violent Crime: 200% per capita what it was in 1960 Rape: 275% per capita Robbery: 180% per capita Aggravated Assault: 270% per capita Property Crime: 150% per capita Larceny: 180% per capita Considering 2015, 2016, 2017 all saw rises in violent crime (a reversal of a trend of many decades), those percentages would be even greater today.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 16:26:18 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information. I'm afraid it's up to us to check our consumption habits, and advise others to check theirs. That's all we can do. Any attempt to police the media for e.g. "hyperbolic reporting" in this day and age would be inviting blackouts of truly important events and stories--those that really do impact all of us.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 8:32:10 GMT -5
No, Richard specifically mentioned the Pulse night club. Not 17+, but 49 killed and 58 wounded. He guaranteed it. That would be rather more difficult to pull off. Ah. Right. Still... Maybe there are overhead sprinklers spraying hot water occasionally, hence nobody sprayed by arterial blood when a victim's throat is slashed is concerned by it. Also, nobody is concerned about the massive puddles of fluid they're slipping on while dancing. And perhaps there's absolutely no light except faint strobe pulses once every few seconds, so nobody is really able to witness an attack or see the person in front of them drop dead. And it's a commonplace thing for people to be passed out unconscious all over the dance floor, so revelers think nothing of it. Drugs, drinking, exhaustion, etc. And it's quite possible the music and din of the crowd is absolutely booming, hence any screams by victims or witnesses are completely drowned out. And not beyond the realm of possibility that every victim dies instantly, without, say, bumping into people, groping at people, staggering through the crowd, and such. And perhaps the killer is skilled enough to dispatch victims in an average of 6 seconds each, meaning all the above need only persist for a hair under 5 minutes. All the cogs in the machine are potentially there. You have to wonder: maybe it really could happen.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 7:54:22 GMT -5
You good people can cling to the 2018 theories on what ought to reduce crime, ought to increase happiness, ought to balance budgets, ought to reduce suicide and addiction, ought to bring peace between the sexes, ought to put the nation on an upward trajectory...
But what can any practical soul do except appeal to a time when crime was low, happiness great, budgets balanced, suicide and addiction rare, the sexes at peace, and the nation on an upward trajectory rather than plunging into the abyss.
Not that every solitary aspect of that era contributed to its superior qualities. It's hard to say sometimes whether the overt racial hatred of those years is truly worse than the ghettoized, violence-ridden, dependency-engineering mess of the present day, with the seething resentment of both sides bubbling over the lip and into sight just occasionally, but I'll give you guys that one. Black/white race relations in the US today are better than they were in the 1950's, and racial hatred less commonplace. Given the present trajectory of race relations, that's a mighty shaky peg to hang your hat on, though.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 7:17:05 GMT -5
Don't say "Of course..." anything.
I wouldn't share, except possibly to explain my mood in response to a query. And others' sympathy wouldn't help.
But true to my word: perhaps the particular example of "grief porn" in the OP is a poor example in the sense that the good will outweigh the bad. As already mentioned, most of the major pitfalls don't apply, and the rest hinge on whether the bombardment of sympathy is ultimately a boon or a bane to the grieving families.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 22:14:09 GMT -5
Humboldt thanks you for your sympathies, Virgil. If your cat Sushi died tomorrow, would you care if I sympathized? The sympathy would be sincere. I have a sense of how much you love him from your posts over the years, and I know what it's like to lose a beloved pet. So if you posted tomorrow and were distraught because he'd died, it would grieve me, if only for a day. I'm sure it would touch many here. Would our empathy and sympathy matter to you? Would you even disclose the death to us? Or would you limit disclosure to family and friends until the worst had passed? I won't say years of public interaction between YMAM members makes us "close" per se, but we're a lot closer than the average Canadian is to any one of the Humboldt players. We know you and know about Sushi. You know us, and quite a bit about us in some cases. The average Canadian putting up sympathetic tributes to the Humboldt victims doesn't know them, knows nothing about them except what the media has put out in eulogy, knows nothing about the families they're supposedly feeling sorry for. So if you can't tell me in all honesty that you'd elect to share your tragedy with YMAM, and that my express sympathy and the sympathy of other acquaintances here would significantly impact your emotional state for the better, why should I, you, or anyone conceivably expect better results for the Humboldt families? If you can make such a claim, I'll concede there might be more good than bad in this particular case, hyperbole, media hysteria, and all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 21:01:40 GMT -5
Let's get something clear (and using just one example from the list Richard provided above) the average person whose head is cut off will indeed make very little noise (s/he may mske some while falling down), however the average person standing close by seeing a head being cut off is NOT going to stay silent and wait for the beheader to come at them. They'd be screaming at the top of their lungs even if they would not be able to get away in time. So no, the average person with a blade will not be as "effectice" in killing and maiming a large number of people as a person with a gun. The killer just can't be fast enough
This whole line of reasoning is just silly I believe Richard is appealing to a situation where an individual with the skills of a commando is able to take down people in a booming nightclub swiftly enough that he could kill 17+ by the time all-out panic broke loose. This might be possible in extremely contrived circumstances, such as the killer waiting in ambush in a restroom and dispatching people as they entered one-at-a-time, with a sufficiently large interval between victims. But out in a public area: no way. Even on a chaotic dance floor, I don't care if you're the most expert commando who ever commandoed, you might be able to take down two or three people before the first scream, and maybe another one or two in close quarters. After that you'd have to run people down and butcher them one by one. If you managed to kill 17 by the time the police shot you to swiss cheese, you'd qualify as the 21st Century's most lethal hand-to-hand combatant, bar none. Richard has emphasized "could" several times, meaning he at least acknowledges such a feat might be difficult to pull off. Personally I suspect more nutters will buy a gun than will train to become the world's best commando when they decide they want to perpetrate a massacre. They do tend to be slightly lazy.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 20:33:00 GMT -5
So the question is: Why go back to the 1950's, when crime was a fraction of what it is today, people of all races and both genders reported greater general happiness (established fact; by all means look it up), the middle class was substantial and growing, the US dollar was stable and trusted worldwide, race relations were improving, federal deficits were slight, federal spending was sustainable, and entire races weren't being systematically wiped out via left-approved methodologies?
I can think of a few reasons why somebody might want to.
Those who prefer to stick with "better race relations" and "longer life expectancy" in 2018 can do so, although give it another decade and those'll be gone or well on their way too.
|
|