|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 5:41:29 GMT -5
Funny, that's the question we've been asking you, whether you realize the legitimacy of it or not. Your answers remind me of about a dozen headlines that start with the phrase "Tragedy Strikes!"
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 5:31:52 GMT -5
Making lives cheap is the first step to making them cheap entertainment. I included WBC because all life is cheap to them, they merely wash their hands of moral implications by remaining cheerleaders to bloodbaths.
The KKK started out telling itself it was punishing the "crimes" of Jews and ex-slaves, and a good chunk of that crowd still believes it today. When the value of life becomes tiered and the meaning of murder flexible you'll stop one day and find bodies at your feet. You're going to look around you and see your neighbours killing anyone that sleights them: shoplifters, vandals, and drunks, all with the flippant disregard of Al Capone because the people on their knees and begging for their lives are acceptable targets to them. When that day comes are you going to realize you've boiled crime and morality down to a matter of personal relativity and power or are you going to shrug at the corpses and just take comfort in the idea that they've got it coming and nobody with rights is getting hurt? Then you'll walk down the street, not even paying attention as some guy gets beaten to death in an alley. Some drunk, probably picked a fight. You don't know. You certainly don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 4:50:58 GMT -5
Human trafficking and prostitution are two seperate issues. As long as any paying work exists somebody will smuggle live bodies to fill the positions as virtual slaves. The sex trade is just another form of paying work and the virtual enslavement of prostitutes roped into it isn't all that different from the sweatshop workers suckered out of their life savings by the Triad only to live 'in debt' to the crimelord that made their immigration possible with the threat of death on one side and deportation on the other. The horror factor of sexual slavery and ease of forcing on someone who signed away their human rights gives it a greater emphasis when human trafficking is examined. If prostitution is legal, with licensed and protected brothels where the men and women ply their trade in safety that handily eliminates violent street pimps. Who will risk an illegal hooker of unverified health and jacked up prices when the local bordello is just down the street? As stated before there will always be opportunists that try to sneak people in under the radar but if brothels are regulated a sudden influx of workers would be noticed by any oversight doing it's job making trafficking harder to hide.
Arguments in favor: Opens a new front in the private sector to combat growing unemployment. Pimps can go screw themselves because nobody else will be doing it for them. Increased taxable revenue. Clean conditions and health benefits reduces the STD's going around. Frees up police resources to a degree. Also: Hookers for everybody.
Arguments against: The 'moral majority' will refuse to ever shut the hell up but that's a given no matter how the issue develops. Clients may dangerously objectify sex workers, though stiff legal penalties and a union-wide ban slapped on sadistic assholes may curb that.
Grey areas: Loveshy members and similarly inept persons will be able to get laid in spite of themselves without ever working through their issues. Niche fetish establishments are going to crop up something fierce and their level of financial success will reveal terrifying things about your neighbours. (Not really your business what other people do in the bedroom but when the House of Scatplay closes out four other competitors it will keep you up at night.)
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 4:09:20 GMT -5
Well, on the one hand unwanted physical contact of any kind is considered assault. On the other hand, endless verbal abuse and slander also constitutes a crime.
It's kind of insulting, seeing as Reverend James "Screaming Sodomy" Belcher isn't facing any charges of his own. The local police chief said he was surprised Belcher was pressing charges at all. My take? Either they both get community service, or the charges get dropped and the Reverend agrees to limit his threats of brimstone and torture to his actual congregation while Joan Parker arranges an informed consent group hug.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 3:49:51 GMT -5
Assuming you're not taking the piss, what's your reasoning behind that? I'm genuinely curious. The way I see it, as long as the murderin' is confined to burglars and such then I don't really think it deserves jail time. Yes, it would be better not to kill them if it can at all be avoided, but if they are killed by an irate store owner, then no big loss really. That's just my subjective opinion though. You've just stated that you don't believe this act is such a big deal as to warrant jail time. I didn't ask you if you *want* them to start skipping the judge and jury but if you would show them the same clemency given their position of public trust and potential for abuse. I then ran a comparison for how famously horrible people waved off the notion what they were doing was a monstrous felony and deserved to be prosecuted as such simply because their choice of victim was 'acceptable' to their views. The question - exactly as it was worded - still stands. The dumb punk was already down, Ersland chose to kill him while he was helpless. Had the headshot been fatal or the assailant still mobile and doing anything as vaugely threatening as running towards somebody when the killing barrage came we would be shrugging it off right now. But that's not how it went down, the kid was pretty much a hostage in the minutes leading to his death, he might as well have been hancuffed or hogtied.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 3:11:42 GMT -5
Because their vocal patterns are more akin to avian mimicry than opinions (even stupid ones) voiced by human beings?
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 3:07:19 GMT -5
Wait a minute, if they already test all blood samples doesn't that make that make the 'risky behavior' automatic rejection criteria little more than an insult?
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 2:45:11 GMT -5
To be fair, don't Texan home defense laws allow you to chase down someone to the ends of the earth and put a bullet in them and ach family member they have just for setting foor on so much as your neighbour's property? (Hyperhbole, for the uninitiated) Texans certainly seem to think their laws allow it. www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1375180.php/Texan_kills_2_robbers_while_on_phone_with_911It ceases to be hyperbole when it actually happens. The best these people can hope for is to bargain down to Murder in the 2nd or manslaughter. Add to that reckless endangerment for chasing down and emptying a clip at a fleeing suspect. I was unaware Ersland did that, the text only stated he drove the second gunman off. If he gave chase well off the property grounds that leaves an even larger window for the adrenaline to thin out and takes a sledgehammer to the knees of the panicked response defense. Ersland fell outside the defense scenario first when he left the store to chase the runner, and again when he executed the downed attacker. He claimed he was 'defending' his two co-workers, whom you might have noticed he left alone in the store and that the poor bastard with a bullet in his head was still a threat. What Ersland did was nothing more or less than a cold blooded execution. Murder in the 1st stands, as does the minimum sentence that accompanies it. @ Art Vandelay Would you sing the same tune if cops just blew people's brains out once they were cuffed? This guy was down and out, for all practical intents and purposes he was already in custody and awaiting transportation. Summary executions aren't a form of heroic irony or hard justice, they're just murders you've convinced yourself you shouldn't feel bad about. Kind of like lynchings, Mosque bombings, or WBC. Their victims committed a crime in their eyes, they didn't think any 'justice' should be met with personal guilt or legal repercussions
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 17:47:51 GMT -5
Damn. I'm not topping that any time soon. Goes to show just how different the world looks when you know what political buzzwords actually mean.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 17:09:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the warm welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 17:04:35 GMT -5
Considering the 'gay' look can be divided into camp and butch with both perceptions being curb stomped by the reality that actually being gay doesn't look like anything this is pretty bullshit. It's like being fashionable: fashion literally looks like anything people will pay stupid sums of money to wear and changes constantly based on outside perception.
Singling out gay men as a risk factor should have gone out with the realization that straight people are just as likely to be HIV positive. The questionaire you fill out before you donate already covers the two largest risks: "Do you certify your health information is up to date?" And "Since your last blood test, have you engaged in relations with someone whose health you cannot verify?"
Or hell, just run tests before fresh blood is placed in permanent storage and deliver payment only when the donation clears as clean. I'm not terribly knowledgable about the process, is there any reason that wouldn't be feasible?
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 16:35:20 GMT -5
I agree that you are quite justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, but once your assailant no longer poses a threat the word defense no longer applies. There is the kill confirmation and mercy kill angle to consider, but that doesn't typically entail any more than a second shot. This was definitely done in rage. What I want to know is why he got a second gun. Was he shooting with both for an adrenaline rush? That shows signs of being mentally disturbed.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 0:11:24 GMT -5
Sorry to kill your indignance buzz, but the ban on that is fairly legit. It's a health risk. There are indeed beach advisories. My family fell 1 lousy hour behind one such advisory. I went swimming in Lake Ontario and wound up throwing up almost every day for over a month due to gyrosilis. (Am I spelling that right?)
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 0:01:53 GMT -5
I've a real concern in regards to trolls: What happens when they start posting and spamming under the names of legitimate users? The annoyance that plagues Quote# 82581 is an immediate example.
It may be an undeserved credit to their intelligence to employ this tactic but if not it will prove a true headache to the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 19, 2011 19:33:29 GMT -5
Hi, I'm Passerby. New to the forums, been haunting FSTDT for a little while. Male, white, agnostic, straight, Canadian, little screwy in the head, just as quick to insult as to defend others, and generally terrible with introductions and other interpersonal skills. My native language is Sarcasm, so my English may suffer slightly as a result. Further cheap, yet valid excuses for my spotty grammar and spelling can be found within the BC school system. Nice to make everybody's aquaintance.
|
|