Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Neo-Progressivism is a cancer within our society

Neo-Progressivism is a cancer within our society (Page 10)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Nov 30, 2015, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sadly I'm beginning to think the latter is closest to the truth. It may still be less than the real figure.

It makes a lot of sense too. Women whose rapists are more powerful or influential than them, who are unavoidable members of their family or extended family, who are violent or abusive or dangerous, women with low self esteem are all cases where you can understand why a report doesn't get filed.
Prostitutes or vulnerable women who have been raped repeatedly will tend not to bother reporting it too.
I think the official figure is likely a highball, but I was (intentionally) really lowballing it.

I agree for the most part with your post on the need for more terms. The categories are difficult because there's often an element of implied violence which ideally would count as well.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 30, 2015 at 01:39 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Nov 30, 2015, 12:57 AM
 
Well, this is interesting but not surprising From Conan.
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Nov 30, 2015, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
None of this is law.

The "proof" mentioned in the headline isn't what needs to be shown to the court, it's what needs to be shown to police and prosecutors to get them off your tail.

This is like any crime. If cops and prosecutors think you're guilty, you need to prove it to them you're not or you tell it to the judge.

The issue the guidelines attempt to address are people who are guilty of rape even though lack of consent wasn't verbalized. The guidelines say "if this is the situation, you should still try to go after the guilty person".

I'll also note in my comparison analysis, I put unreported rapes as 20% of all rapes. The U.K. is claiming almost the inverse. They say reported rapes make up only 25% of all rapes.
Without actual evidence I have no reason to believe it's true. It's like how in the USA, rad-fem Social Sci (heh) researchers (double-heh) have been unable to find the numbers of rapes they were expecting, by a huge amount, so now they're resorting to "statistics" that are based on feelings and intuition to try and remain relevant, which then brought about the often-mocked "Listen and Believe" campaign. Rape is the cornerstone of the anti-sexism movement for maintaining the illusion of Rape Culture, without it they lose a huge amount of fear with which to monger.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Nov 30, 2015, 04:20 PM
 
As I said, I think it's a highball, but even with my extreme lowball, depending upon what false claim figures we use, we're either approaching a situation where men are causing twice as much damage as women, or we're past it.

I'm still (honestly) curious at how lopsided the damage needs to be for one side to be declared as having a clear advantage/disadvantage over the other? Is causing twice as much damage enough?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Dec 1, 2015, 08:27 AM
 
University President pens an open letter to his students.
This is Not a Day Care. It's a University! - Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This is Not a Day Care. It’s a University!

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 1, 2015, 03:08 PM
 
Someone on Twitter explained the situation going on in US universities perfectly.

"5 decades of "equality" is currently losing to neo-tribalism."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 04:58 AM
 
UMD Fat Studies course labels dieting a "special enemy" of diversity.

For. ****'s. sake...

Fat Studies is a field concerned with "offering a sustained critique of anti-fat sentiment, discrimination, and policy.”
Assigned reading materials for the course include a "Fat Liberation Manifesto" which labels diet books, diet foods, and diet doctors as “special enemies.”

Students at the University of Maryland will have the chance to “engage fatness” next term as part of a “Fat Studies” course offered by the school's American Studies department.

“Introduction to Fat Studies” will not engage “fatness” as a social or medical problem, according to a syllabus for the course posted online. Instead, the course will approach fatness as “an aspect of human diversity, experience, and identity.”
There's not a facepalm gif big enough for this...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 10:51 AM
 
Maryland is a leftist stronghold. Go figure.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 12:50 PM
 
A recent Kean graduate has been charged with making racist death threats using a bogus Twittwer account. Another "the end justifies the means" move.

Twitter threats to black Kean students made by black alum, police say | NJ.com
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
UMD Fat Studies course labels dieting a "special enemy" of diversity.

For. ****'s. sake...



There's not a facepalm gif big enough for this...
I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't doing it right™, but fat people are pretty severely bullied and discriminated against. I was a fat kid. It was pretty brutal.

Any thoughts on when the rape thing gets lopsided enough it's fair to call it lopsided?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't doing it right™, but fat people are pretty severely bullied and discriminated against. I was a fat kid. It was pretty brutal.
They're offering a class on being dangerously unhealthy, saying it's perfectly fine and everyone else's problem, not the fat person's. All the while millions die every year from obesity related health issues. Hell, we might as well have classes on being a druggie, or smoking cigs, or alcohol abuse. Obesity isn't a lifestyle, or a positive thing, it's a disease.


Any thoughts on when the rape thing gets lopsided enough it's fair to call it lopsided?
I don't believe it really is lopsided. Cases like this are starting to get noticed: Rape Relief wants say in Ivan Henry compensation trial
Henry was wrongfully convicted of 10 sexual offences against eight women in 1983 and declared a dangerous offender. He served nearly 27 years in prison before he was released and the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2010 declared him acquitted of the charges.
Personally, I think 27 years in prison, especially doing time as an accused rapist, is as bad (if not worse) than what he was alleged to have done. No doubt he had some situations that arose in prison, probably was raped himself, from being wrongfully charged and convicted. And now they want to backdoor (NPI) him into being treated like a criminal again, rather than admit they ****ed up. It's a damned disgrace and some feminists want to make it even worse by lowering the standard of guilt. To hell with that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
UMD Fat Studies course labels dieting a "special enemy" of diversity.

For. ****'s. sake...



There's not a facepalm gif big enough for this...
I went to UMD.

I am not surprised in the least.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Dec 2, 2015, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't doing it right™, but fat people are pretty severely bullied and discriminated against. I was a fat kid. It was pretty brutal.

Any thoughts on when the rape thing gets lopsided enough it's fair to call it lopsided?
I grew up super skinny - it wasn't a cakewalk for me either.

Kids are dicks.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 3, 2015, 11:20 AM
 
Hook me up with some examples.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 3, 2015, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They're offering a class on being dangerously unhealthy, saying it's perfectly fine and everyone else's problem, not the fat person's. All the while millions die every year from obesity related health issues. Hell, we might as well have classes on being a druggie, or smoking cigs, or alcohol abuse. Obesity isn't a lifestyle, or a positive thing, it's a disease.
As I said, they're they likely aren't doing it right™.

But let's, for example, take the "Fat Liberation Manifesto" from which the title of the article is drawn. Up until the end, the author of the manifesto hits the nail right on the head. Diets are the enemy. Most of them don't work. It's a racket, and it's exploiting people who are desperate to lose weight not because it's healthy, but because society abuses the shit out of them.

As an aside, you kinda do need a class on smoking cigs, at least the etiquette. Smokers are rude because no one teaches them how to be polite. It took me decades to realize I should make sure no one is walking behind me on the sidewalk if I'm going to light up.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 3, 2015, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't believe it really is lopsided. Cases like this are starting to get noticed: Rape Relief wants say in Ivan Henry compensation trial
I know you don't think it's lopsided.

I'm asking at what point would it become so for you. How many more true claims over false claims would be needed.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I know you don't think it's lopsided.

I'm asking at what point would it become so for you. How many more true claims over false claims would be needed.
I'm not seeing how it's an issue of ratios. In a criminal proceeding there's never a time that someone should be required to prove their innocence. It's up to the prosecutor to prove their guilt. If one person is wrongfully convicted of rape and is sent to prison for decades, is required to endure all the suffering that brings, and then has to live with the stigma of it for the rest of their life, it's too many. They might as well execute him, that's what I'd prefer.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 08:38 AM
 
With the current situation in CA., Democrats and liberal stooges are AGAIN screaming "GUN CONTROL"!
How many failures in a row do they need before realizing the tactic is not working?
Are liberals really THAT STUPID?
Is it that they do not actually observe reality?
Perhaps their poor widdle feewings would be hurt, and they would feel bad if they had to admit they were w-w-wrong?

They have Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, NYC just to name a few with really tough gun laws.
It hasn't worked, but made things much worse.

Now President Failure and the Democrats are whining again about it.
They haven't realized after all this time that the real problem is how to keep wack jobs and criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Next time some idiot suggests that liberals are smarter than conservatives, bring this up.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not seeing how it's an issue of ratios. In a criminal proceeding there's never a time that someone should be required to prove their innocence. It's up to the prosecutor to prove their guilt. If one person is wrongfully convicted of rape and is sent to prison for decades, is required to endure all the suffering that brings, and then has to live with the stigma of it for the rest of their life, it's too many. They might as well execute him, that's what I'd prefer.
We can agree to disagree on the ratios then.

I don't get the "prove their innocence" comment. Where is this the situation? Again, it isn't in the U.K., and it isn't here.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 01:25 PM
 
There are many blacks, like this idiot, who actually believe this bullshit:



Direct quotes:

"Every single white person is born racist, and remain that way until they learn better."
"People of color can't be racist, we are born without racism."
"We live in a 100% white supremacist society."

That's so stupid I don't even know what to say.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We can agree to disagree on the ratios then.

I don't get the "prove their innocence" comment. Where is this the situation? Again, it isn't in the U.K., and it isn't here.
Articles: Rape on Campus: Guilty until Proven Innocent
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ba...rticle/2551863
http://time.com/88407/the-white-hous...n-denominator/
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 01:36 PM
 
I agree these are bad policies, but you said criminal proceeding.

Colleges and universities don't have jurisdiction over criminal proceedings.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree these are bad policies, but you said criminal proceeding.
A college case can be picked up by the USAG, and they often are. These were mandates handed down from the DoE via the USAG. Either way, it destroys the man's life; his education, prospects for a career, and his good name. It's simply Social Justice by another means, and it's as vile as rape itself.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 02:00 PM
 
Once a college case is picked up by the AG, it's subject to the rules of US courts, which includes innocent until proven guilty.

Again, the policies you discuss aren't good ones, but they're completely irrelevant to criminal proceedings.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 02:14 PM
 
Except California, apparently: "Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent" by Natalie Lyons

The statutory remedy for removing an arrest from a person’s record places an undue burden upon a person who has never been found guilty of a crime. California Penal Code section 851.8 mandates that an arrested person prove her factual innocence before the arrest record may be sealed and destroyed.

This Comment examines the injustice of this section 851.8 requirement that an arrested person prove her innocence before the arrest record will be destroyed. Part I considers the probative value of an arrest record measured against its impact on the arrested person’s life, focusing on the disparate impact of arrests on marginalized communities of color. Part II examines the provisions of section 851.8 and the cases interpreting the factual innocence standard. Part III challenges section 851.8 under the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution and the procedural due process analysis provided by the State’s high court in People v. Ramirez. Finally, Part IV proposes a statutory revision in light of the recent shift in California criminal justice away from the “tough on crime” mentality, toward a more enlightened approach.

Recommended Citation
Natalie Lyons, Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent: California Penal Code Section 851.8 and the Injustice of Imposing a Factual Innocence Standard on Arrested Persons, 43 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 485 (2013).
"Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent" by Natalie Lyons
"So, Mr Smith, you were arrested and charged with rape, can we expect such behavior at our firm in the future?"

However, a court of law isn't necessary to destroy a person's life anymore, thanks to social justice.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Now you've lost me...

Are you claiming this stance is somehow an outgrowth of progressivism or neo-progressivism?

I would presume most progressives hate this policy.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now you've lost me...
I think we're simply at odds now, because I didn't say anything about progressivism.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 03:35 PM
 
That's what I understood the sentence "[h]owever, a court of law isn't necessary to destroy a person's life anymore, thanks to social justice" to be referring to.

You can replace "progressivism" in my post with "social justice", and "social justice types".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 03:43 PM
 
And... I don't think we're at odds.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 4, 2015, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's what I understood the sentence "[h]owever, a court of law isn't necessary to destroy a person's life anymore, thanks to social justice" to be referring to.

You can replace "progressivism" in my post with "social justice", and "social justice types".
No no no, there can be social justice in any area of the political spectrum, Left, Right, Center, it doesn't matter. It just means you're willing to use extralegal means; doxing, shaming, abuse, threats, etc. to get retribution for what you see as wrongdoing, often along with others as an organized group. It's just plain, old-fashioned vigilantism. Neo-progressives do it more often than anyone else now, but others are guilty too (some within Gamergate). Essentially the USAG has authorized, and endorses, social justice as a way of dealing with alleged campus rapists, and it's sickening.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 02:10 AM
 
I got what you're saying, and missed the Title IX stuff from your previous post. My bad.

I mean, I get where it's coming from, universities are totally fine with sweeping stuff under the rug, but this swings it too far in the other direction.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
With the current situation in CA., Democrats and liberal stooges are AGAIN screaming "GUN CONTROL"!
How many failures in a row do they need before realizing the tactic is not working?
Are liberals really THAT STUPID?
Is it that they do not actually observe reality?
Perhaps their poor widdle feewings would be hurt, and they would feel bad if they had to admit they were w-w-wrong?

They have Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, NYC just to name a few with really tough gun laws.
It hasn't worked, but made things much worse.

Now President Failure and the Democrats are whining again about it.
They haven't realized after all this time that the real problem is how to keep wack jobs and criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Next time some idiot suggests that liberals are smarter than conservatives, bring this up.
It's not "stupidity," as such. It's more a matter of these folks not having a real idea about how gun control legislation has been tried before, how unlikely it is that criminals will be affected by gun laws, and about how many law abiding citizens would be harmed by their suggestions.

People who think that gun control can prevent a terrorist attack just don't grasp that "laws" only have an impact on the "law abiding," and that criminals, by definition, do not respect the limits placed on their behavior by laws. They don't know that drugs aren't the only things that pass illegally across borders (national or state), and they don't realize that criminals don't go to a gun shop to buy guns, they go to "Joe's car, in the supermarket parking lot, after midnight" to buy guns.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 03:33 PM
 
They like to act like we don't already have 1000s gun laws in this country that aren't being properly enforced.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It's not "stupidity," as such. It's more a matter of these folks not having a real idea about how gun control legislation has been tried before, how unlikely it is that criminals will be affected by gun laws, and about how many law abiding citizens would be harmed by their suggestions.

People who think that gun control can prevent a terrorist attack just don't grasp that "laws" only have an impact on the "law abiding," and that criminals, by definition, do not respect the limits placed on their behavior by laws. They don't know that drugs aren't the only things that pass illegally across borders (national or state), and they don't realize that criminals don't go to a gun shop to buy guns, they go to "Joe's car, in the supermarket parking lot, after midnight" to buy guns.
I keep observing Liberals relating to everything as a stereotype, or soap opera plot. They hear a phrase and have a preconceived notion of whatever beliefs they've been conditioned to think. I've been able to call out some liberals by asking them WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD YOU DO TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS, WACK JOBS AND TERRORISTS, and all I got was some vague "gun control/confiscate all guns BS. Seems they have been brainwashed by the MSM pretty well. Is it ignorance or indoctrination?
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 06:51 PM
 
It's fear.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 11:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not seeing how it's an issue of ratios. In a criminal proceeding there's never a time that someone should be required to prove their innocence. It's up to the prosecutor to prove their guilt. If one person is wrongfully convicted of rape and is sent to prison for decades, is required to endure all the suffering that brings, and then has to live with the stigma of it for the rest of their life, it's too many. They might as well execute him, that's what I'd prefer.
I said we should agree to disagree, but I wanted to be sure I was giving your position a fair shot, and looked into the Ivan Henry case, as you suggested.

That case made me agree with you a lot more, but also demonstrates where I believe the ratios come into play.

In terms of where I agree, the most obvious is with regards to the scale of damage heaped upon Henry. It wins the severity Olympiad.

Further, he was railroaded by the cops, and though I have no data to support this claim, were we to investigate the incidence rate of men and women getting railroaded by the cops, something tells me it's men to whom it happens most. I'd guess by about an order of magnitude.

That said, the same point reflects the ratio I'm trying to get at... this case doesn't involve any malice towards men on the part of the women involved.

The author who presented the study false claims are about as numerous as legit claims made note of the reasons behind the false claims. In all three sets of data he used, he had consistent* results: the number of women who made a false claim out of malice was about 30% of all false claims.

OTOH, you have to assume close to 100% of the rapes were committed out of malice.

That's the part which strikes me as lopsided.


*The exception were university students, who had a malice rate of 50%... well, knock me over with a feather.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Dec 5, 2015, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It's not "stupidity," as such. It's more a matter of these folks not having a real idea about how gun control legislation has been tried before, how unlikely it is that criminals will be affected by gun laws, and about how many law abiding citizens would be harmed by their suggestions.

People who think that gun control can prevent a terrorist attack just don't grasp that "laws" only have an impact on the "law abiding," and that criminals, by definition, do not respect the limits placed on their behavior by laws. They don't know that drugs aren't the only things that pass illegally across borders (national or state), and they don't realize that criminals don't go to a gun shop to buy guns, they go to "Joe's car, in the supermarket parking lot, after midnight" to buy guns.

This stupid argument about criminals and laws is tired. Its really just a convenient get out. Like when Christians or Muslims disown one of their members as "not a real Christian/Muslim" because of their particular actions.


Except crime isn't as simple as that.
Dumb or angry criminals who commit crimes without thinking, perhaps on the spur of the moment will grab whatever is to hand. Or won't grab whatever isn't.
Smarter criminals are performing a risk/reward calculation when they decide to commit a crime. What will they gain if they get away with it? What sentence if caught? How likely are they to be shot dead by a cop or a civilian in the process? If they no longer have to assume that civilians are likely to be armed, they don't need to be armed. If they aren't likely to be armed, the cops don't need to shoot them so readily on the off chance. Which is another reason the criminals don't need to be armed. This is what tends to happen in other developed countries. Only the very worst criminals bother to arm themselves. Bank robbers, drugs gangs and terrorists. Thats basically it. Not muggers or carjackers or burglars. Not rapists or low level drug dealers. A gun is just more years in prison to them. And more motivation for the police to devote resources to catch them.

So then we get to wondering about where Joe's car gets its stock from. My bet is thieves who take guns from houses and cars. That and "responsible gun owners" who get hard up and sell them for quick cash after filing the serial off and before reporting them stolen and claiming on the home insurance to double down.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I keep observing Liberals relating to everything as a stereotype, or soap opera plot. They hear a phrase and have a preconceived notion of whatever beliefs they've been conditioned to think. I've been able to call out some liberals by asking them WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD YOU DO TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS, WACK JOBS AND TERRORISTS, and all I got was some vague "gun control/confiscate all guns BS. Seems they have been brainwashed by the MSM pretty well. Is it ignorance or indoctrination?
For some reason almost everything you seem to post these days is infinitely more applicable to you and your ilk than it is to liberals. I have to think its better to be brainwashed by the mainstream media than by the lunatic fringe media. Also conditioning people to be empathetic and compassionate is way more difficult than conditioning them not to be.

The solution to your country's gun problems should be incredibly simple, because everyone else has already found it. The only reason it isn't simple is because people like you lot won't go along with the solution if it were ever to be implemented. Its not the criminals who are the problem, its you guys.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 6, 2015, 08:45 AM
 
AGAIN your post illustrates just how ignorant and conditioned you are.
You haven't bothered to tell how you keep guns out of the hands of criminals, wack jobs and terrorist. THAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.
Its a shame your conditioning makes it impossible for you to see it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Dec 6, 2015, 07:02 PM
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've always been very ambivalent towards gun control legislation. If for no other reason than because even the NRA was suddenly cool with gun control after this went down ...



... but white dudes walking around with AR-15's in a Chipotle? That's fine!!! In any event, from a purely intellectual basis I must say that the "Criminals will not obey gun control laws so you are only impacting law-abiding citizens." argument to be quite simplistic. It's certainly appealing on that level but it definitely lacks a certain degree of nuance. It's NOT that those who favor gun control legislation are stupid liberals who can't grasp the "logic" of that argument. Gun control legislation is actually rooted in two fundamental concepts. LETHALITY. And AVAILABILITY. Firearms by their very nature have a much higher lethality index than other weapons. So spare me the silly arguments about sticks, knives, and automobiles. And certain firearms ... like high-powered assault weapons or semi-automatics are more lethal than others. So that combined with the high availability of such weapons from both legal and illegal sources makes for a very dangerous combination from a PUBLIC SAFETY standpoint. Because while some people are harping about their so-called 2nd Amendment rights to own an AR-15 .... other people are concerned about what happens when a criminal breaks into that person's home and steals that weapon because they couldn't be bothered to lock it up properly. And then when someone ends up shot and killed from that weapon the original owner is sitting there like "Oops. My bad."

There's a case to be made for limiting the AVAILABILITY of weapons that exceed a certain LETHALITY index. Not because people don't have sense enough to realize that available weapons will continue to be acquired by criminals. It's because they realize that even criminals will have a difficult time acquiring such weapons if they weren't so readily available.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 12:54 AM
 
I remember when the press freaked when this happened. The pic was zoomed to conceal the fact he is black.

MSNBC: ObamaCare Protesters ‘Racist,’ Including Black Gun-Owner
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 02:02 AM
 
If criminals actually paid attention to laws and availability of guns on the "LETHALITY index", then I'd be open to tougher standards, but they don't. Yet again, violence and the homicide rate is on the decline, despite anything the media says.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 07:02 AM
 
"Responsible" citizen buys gun legally, gets into an argument over a parking space, shoots a guy in the face. Now he's a criminal! They don't respect gun laws, thats why he did it. Not because it was easy for him to get a gun over the counter and then lose his temper. Its because HE'S A CRIMINAL.

Its a one shot get-out clause which is why the guntards love it, but its a fallacy.

If you remove the guns from circulation, the idiots and the opportunists can't pick them up because they aren't to hand. If you increase the punishments for handling illegal weapons, the costs go up for the criminals buying them, plus their reduced need, the risk/reward calculation looks very different. Fewer criminals even need them in the first place. In all likelihood, fewer liquor or convenience stores get robbed as well, because it isn't worth buying a $10k gun to steal $2k from a store.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 08:44 AM
 
MORE fictional scenarios? I guess you DON'T have a handle on reality, as I've said before.
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
"Responsible" citizen buys gun legally, gets into an argument over a parking space, shoots a guy in the face. Now he's a criminal! They don't respect gun laws, thats why he did it. Not because it was easy for him to get a gun over the counter and then lose his temper. Its because HE'S A CRIMINAL.

Its a one shot get-out clause which is why the guntards love it, but its a fallacy.
Your whole argument there is a fallacy, and watch with the "guntards" name-calling.

If you remove the guns from circulation, the idiots and the opportunists can't pick them up because they aren't to hand. If you increase the punishments for handling illegal weapons, the costs go up for the criminals buying them, plus their reduced need, the risk/reward calculation looks very different. Fewer criminals even need them in the first place. In all likelihood, fewer liquor or convenience stores get robbed as well, because it isn't worth buying a $10k gun to steal $2k from a store.
Increasing punishments doesn't work and the more unfettered the access to guns, the more our murder rate goes down. Maybe it wouldn't be the same in EU-land, or anywhere else, but it's true in the US.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 11:09 AM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If criminals actually paid attention to laws and availability of guns on the "LETHALITY index", then I'd be open to tougher standards, but they don't.
You do realize that part in bold makes no sense whatsoever right?

OAW
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I think if you look at charts for other 1st world countries, yes even those with very strict gun control laws, you will see a roughly similar trend. I would think someone as fond as proclaiming 'FALLACY!" at the slightest provocation would know that correlation != causation.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
As I am fond of pointing out, in the countries with highest per capita murder rates, the majority of those murders are machete murders.
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 01:57 PM
 
This is an interesting infographic. There are more deaths as a result of drugs and/or malpractice than guns.
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Dec 7, 2015, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think if you look at charts for other 1st world countries, yes even those with very strict gun control laws, you will see a roughly similar trend. I would think someone as fond as proclaiming 'FALLACY!" at the slightest provocation would know that correlation != causation.
You "think" if you look at charts from other countries? I'll need a citation on that, otherwise don't accuse me of fallacies in the same breath.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,