[Barak]

Rolem, on May 19 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

Well most of what I am seeing here is getting very nonsensical(if thats actualy a word) and getting so far off the wall it is beyond recovery. I just can't believe I am hearing some of this here of all places. I realy disagree with the reasononings on this one so I will just quit and let it be done before it gets even more out of hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll admit it's a little unusual in this day and age to be presented with anything that actually makes you think. Television and movies present you with a fait accompli, no thinking required. Video games are heavily constrained: you can stop or keep going, but you can't wander far from the course laid out for you. Even Internet blogs and forums tend to be quite specialized, consisting of "people who think just like we do" on one side, and "trolls and flamers," who can be comfortably dismissed without much thought because of their sheer offensiveness, on the other.

In such an environment, striking out past the borders of where you've been trained and authorized to think can be almost painful. Questioning the assumptions you've been brought up with, whether religious, political, patriotic, or stereotypical, is not for everybody: it requires a special blend of sober, deliberative rebellion, humility, and self-reliance that is not widely found among the sheep of today's intellectual pasture.

So I don't blame you for feeling a little beset, and retreating into designations of "nonsensical" (yes, that is a word) and "off the wall." May your chains sit lightly on you; go from us in peace.

[Lawhobbit]

Barak, on May 19 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

Lawhobbit, on May 19 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

This is not a question requiring "a decent period of awestruck, reverent admiration, followed by a respectful enlargement," is it?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, it's not even a question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The alleged punctuation mark COULD have been a typo.

[Lawhobbit]

Barak, on May 19 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

Rolem, on May 19 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

Well most of what I am seeing here is getting very nonsensical(if thats actualy a word) and getting so far off the wall it is beyond recovery. I just can't believe I am hearing some of this here of all places. I realy disagree with the reasononings on this one so I will just quit and let it be done before it gets even more out of hand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll admit it's a little unusual in this day and age to be presented with anything that actually makes you think. Television and movies present you with a fait accompli, no thinking required. Video games are heavily constrained: you can stop or keep going, but you can't wander far from the course laid out for you. Even Internet blogs and forums tend to be quite specialized, consisting of "people who think just like we do" on one side, and "trolls and flamers," who can be comfortably dismissed without much thought because of their sheer offensiveness, on the other.

In such an environment, striking out past the borders of where you've been trained and authorized to think can be almost painful. Questioning the assumptions you've been brought up with, whether religious, political, patriotic, or stereotypical, is not for everybody: it requires a special blend of sober, deliberative rebellion, humility, and self-reliance that is not widely found among the sheep of today's intellectual pasture.

So I don't blame you for feeling a little beset, and retreating into designations of "nonsensical" (yes, that is a word) and "off the wall." May your chains sit lightly on you; go from us in peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And Ghu forbid you do your thinking and debating with any sort of an occasional chuckle in the process.

You're right, though (can I say that this soon?) - it's a whole lot easier on the brain to just slap labels on things, those labels being conveniently provided by others, and sort of march in step along with the rest of the herd, placidly chewing your State/media-provided braincud.

[Barak]

I don't really have anything to say, but only five of the first six posts say, "Last post by: Barak."

Can't have that.

[Lawhobbit]

Barak, on May 19 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

I don't really have anything to say, but only five of the first six posts say, "Last post by: Barak."

Can't have that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not?

[jnichols]

Oh BOY!!! The philosphical content of this thread has gone above and beyond!! I will only say a couple of things. I think the biggest downfall of this country is that people are not held responsble for their actions. Criminals are not afraid to commit crimes because they know they will not be Punished for them. There is no deterent in our current Liberal state of "rehabilitation" for criminals, in my opinion.

Now, to refer to the "Taser" incident, would the Police have been justified if the Harmless pregnant Woman speeding through the school zone would have hit a child?? I personally DO NOT think speeding through a school zone is a harmless crime as I have seen it spelled out in this thread. Especially after driving up on a bloody child last year that had been hit by someone harmlessly speeding through the school zone.

If the Woman would have died from the the Taser shock, would the Police be recieving more of bashing?? Would the Cops involved be fired or brought up on charges?? I doubt it. Just my opinion, though.

I guess my philosophy on this is that if the Woman had not been speeding through a school zone, NONE of this would have ever happened, which I know is not the point for alot of you, but IS the point to me. If I do something wrong, I expect a repurcussion for my action. That is why I try my best to not do BAD things, to avoid justified or Unjustified reaction from police to my initial wrong action. I hope that made some sort of sense. AND, this is all my feeble little opinion!! I already know you are all right and I am wrong.

[ebd10]

Quote

If I do something wrong, I expect a repurcussion for my action. That is why I try my best to not do BAD things, to avoid justified or Unjustified reaction from police to my initial wrong action.

That's a reasonable stance for anyone. However, as I pointed out earlier, once the police had pulled her over, the problem had been solved. I don't think the outrage would have been as intense had she hit a child, or caused an accident. The point is that she wasn't Tased for something she did, she was Tased for something she didn't do; comply with the police.

That's the problem with Tasers, all of the publicity about their nonlethality has lulled people like yourself into believing that it's a benign instrument. That in itself lends tolerance to what the cop did. If he had had to pull her out of the car and slap her around, the effect would have been the same, but it would have required the cop to actually display his violence to the crowd as opposed to pushing a button and appearing to be a bystander. It's a subtle type of torture, "If you just obey, the pain will stop."

[Barak]

jnichols, on May 19 2005, 07:45 PM, said:

Now, to refer to the "Taser" incident, would the Police have been justified if the Harmless pregnant Woman speeding through the school zone would have hit a child?? I personally DO NOT think speeding through a school zone is a harmless crime as I have seen it spelled out in this thread.
[...]
I already know you are all right and I am wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look...if you want to be wrong, that's fine; but at least be wrong right, after comprehending the situation.

She didn't get Tasered because she was speeding. She got Tasered after she had stopped because she didn't want to sign the ticket. Her car was harmless because it was stopped. She was harmless because she wasn't trying to do anybody any harm: she just wanted to stay in her car and not sign the ticket. She wasn't threatening the police officer, she wasn't threatening the kids, she wasn't threatening herself. She simply wanted to be left alone. So she got Tasered.

[duhrkoopm]

Why didn't she just sign the ticket, it just means she'll show up to court.