lol@ inciting violence. Even IF that were true, there is no evidence this guy listened to talk radio, that’s pure conjecture. In fact, if you watch the video I posted above, his friend said he didn’t watch TV or listen to the radio at all because he liked to keep himself secluded. This makes since because that fits the profile of an insane, schizophrenic person that does these types of things. Lets wait until they find evidence of him being a Sean Hannity fan before we have the incitement to violence discussion. We are way ahead of ourselves.
ugh, i saw that. i haven’t watched a memorial in a while but is it standard practice to cheer and clap? I thought I was watching Opera for a minute there.
Practical purposes? Your quote wasn?t about practical purposes it was about constructing a thesis (using a number of unrealistic/false absolutes) around a rigid belief system as the single moral option. This is the epitome of sophism.
My point wasnt that you need deep scientific inquiries into the belief itself, it was that you need deep scientific inquiry into what crteria you are going to use go about deeming certain beliefs as wrong and others as right. It doesnt seem as simple as it is made out to be.
When I metnion weighting the importance of individual data points, this constitutes an individual?s perspective. Of course perspectives are also a product of our individual biases (which themselves are largely products of anectdotal ?evidence?). Such subjectivity is impossible to divorce from even the most rigid of rational minds. This perspective I speak of is very important and rather indispensible to science itself. The whole spectrum from religion to relativity is generated from the same pool of empirical evidence with varying weight given to the data. So do your favorite books suggest where the line should be drawn as to what constitutes acceptable vs unacceptable belief?
Ive never heard any opinion personality constantly harp on non-violence more than Beck. He has whole shows dedicated to nothing but non-violence. But since he voices (sometimes angrily) his opinion which is critical of the govt he has blood on his hands when this happens? This type of stuff has happened in the past (before cable/talk radio); with greater frequency; from people who were not toatlly batshitnutcase. Why?
The only ones inciting violence are the ones pointing fingers while pretending to be innocent, but maneuvering to use every disaster as a weapon against people who had nothing to do with it. As usual, the left. Hours after this incident, suddenly everyone’s pointing at Palin. Now news media is all “Somehow, Sarah Palin has made this incident all about herself with her speeches”…when it was the left that started this. The left made it up, news ran with it. That’s the usual pattern. It’s fucked up how people think we have an unbiased mainstream media when anybody with a brain can tell that shit leans harder to the left than Pisa’s famous tower when viewed from the east. Remember the “violent, racist” tea party gatherings? Where’s the footage? Media was there, roaming around, looking for it, but couldn’t find any. I’m not for the tea parties cuz I can’t see what good it does, but still I noticed that hypocritical bullcrap. None of the big media was filming there when all gatherings in Arizona over their bill (that simply called for the feds to ENFORCE the very laws they made in the first place) got ugly, with people throwing rocks and bottles at the police, and smearing statements about re-taking states in the name of Mexico in feces on storefront windows. No…smaller, less liberal media networks got the footage and stories. Same for the gays getting butthurt over the prop 8 thing, and hurling the n-word and threating violence. Far be it, though, for the big news networks and newspapers to report anything that could possibly hurt the left. I also noticed the left getting away with actually doing the same thing the right is accused of, and big media covering for them (by not mentioning it). Luckily, there’s always somebody from another news network with a mic or camera around to catch this stuff that otherwise, nobody would note…like when the left’s buddy party, the Communist Party Of America had a not so secret meeting in which the organizer said he was of a mind to use a tactic from back in the 70’s, when saying that they couldn’t be minimized, and that they are america’s future, like it or not: If we can’t open their minds, we’ll open their heads. Didn’t see that on any tv news networks. It’s everywhere else, though. There is clearly a media double-standard.
if you want to tell your followers to put certain districts in their “cross hairs” and act indignant when people say it’s crossing the line then you deserve all the flack in the world when someone who by coincidence shares your views literally puts a rep in their cross hairs.
i’ve barely watched glenn beck, but the few times i can recall seeing him he was insinuating that obreezy is the antichrist/unamerican and all kinds of other fire & brimstone type of shit. if it was fair for people to cal reverend right crazy/violent/etc… then it’s fair to attach those labels to glenn beck.
Thought this was an interesting article (ok, i only based it on the first paragraph, but its a hell of an opening paragraph)
edit: After reading it, I realize he’s talkin about already in place gun laws an all that isht. I don’t think the owning of legal guns is the problem, but I’d like to know where he’s gotten statistics from, cause I know that in hoods across america, barely any of them buy their guns legally. And I know that those 80 ppl dying a day from guns are at least 60% based on the shootings in the rough neighborhoods (Cause that seems to be the only place that deaths happen and nobody really cares, as he said)
going to preface this by saying that i think the charges that it’s the liberals inciting violence by being upset by the rhetoric and atmosphere is laughable. Right, they incited violence against themselves, how DARE they.
another clip of cenk talking about this issue and covering the “they did it too” defense: [media=youtube]qacnXMWBU7c[/media]
sounds SOOOOO liberal to me right guys? lol
[media=youtube]uJdAfChCRGE[/media]
and just for bonus, an interview with gifford: [media=youtube]Z7y5-iHWjEw[/media]
The quote is cautioning the readers to take care in developing a position, because our beliefs influence our actions. The view of morality espoused in the quote is that it is wrong to cede our critical faculties knowingly. While pursuing this to an extreme can result in the “rigid belief system” that you’re reading into it, it is by no means necessary within the text itself.
It’s not my favorite quote. It’s my favorite quote from a book. No, the book does not draw a line, because there is no human being on Earth who applies their utmost care and criteria every single time, nor is there a human being who flawlessly draws the correct objective conclusion every time. Does this mean that no belief can be verified as more correct than another, simply given that the individual who harbors it did not delve into the molecular level in order to verify it? Absolutely not.
We shouldn’t sell guns to the mentally unstable and we should have better mental health facilities available.
However, it won’t happen. The gun debate is stalled because all the people who really care about are either arguing that there should be no limits, or just a complete ban. And the mental health issue collapsed in the 80’s when the left pushed like crazy against institutionalizing people who hadn’t done anything wrong yet and the right responded by gutting the entire system completely.
This is the end result of people sticking to their sides by ideology and refusing to meet in the middle over it. And, as always happens in this country, when faced with the actual fiasco the activists, err idiots, on both sides just double down on their stupid and nothing will get done, again!
I saw that dude’s face on the news with his head shaved. WTF? He gone. Warm up the high voltage furniture, Go get Chriss hansen to tell him to have a seat over there, and call it a night. Guilty as charged. The charge? About 100’000 volts, give or take.
I’m not sure this is true. Many people are openly wondering why it’s so easy for mentally ill people to get guns. There seems to be a small pocket of discourse in which people are insisting that mentally people should be able to carry guns, citing the false dichotomy that banning guns outright is the only other option. And I haven’t seen or heard of anybody suggesting an outright ban on guns at all, other than people who already advocated that prior to the shooting.
There is a slight problem with the whole idea of banning mentally ill people from buying guns. The background check won’t know if someone is mentally ill unless they already have a record of it. Similar to someone committing their first crime, you won’t likely know when someone will commit their first act unless they outright tell you.
Now if we left it up to the person behind the register to determine if a person is mentally unstable for a gun that’s next to impossible because there are definitely people that are simply odd and you might mistake them for being mentally unstable and then it’ll open up another can of worms.
I believe Loughner already had a number of incidents on record that called his mental health into question, to the point of him getting kicked out of school.
He did but I don’t believe that stuff is what pops up on background checks. I think background checks work kind of like points on your driving record. Like the initial check will find a “flag” and then someone has to look into it to see why it’s there and if it’s been resolved. But I’m just speculating.
A private citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Just because some lunatic went out did a horrible thing doesn’t mean the responsible citizens should be fucked over. Bush made the biggest mistake by creating the Patriot Act because of 9/11. Good job on fucking us over when we did nothing at all asshole.