Gun toting red neck

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
liberty
Posts: 5003
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by liberty »

Lord Jim wrote:I thought this was a discussion about a shooting, and the way the media covered it... 8-)
It is Jim, but any variation is welcomed, because anything that promotes thinking is a good and anything impedes thought is a bad thing. And who knows what may come of any line of reasoning; I don’t but I am willing to see.

I believe the Mainstream media is biased in what they report and how they report it. The media should report all known information (race, religion, sex, the individual’s beliefs and of course W WW& H ) and let the people deicide what they want to make of it, but instead they want to guide the people.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Sue, I don't see any difference in our conclusions (I do hope you're not taking the final para at all seriously!). Being situational or relative means that no thing is truly "right" or "wrong" - it is merely "what we like" or "what we don't like". It is not possible to say that laws against homosexuality are "wrong" nor that laws in favour of homosexuality are "wrong". No argument for or against such positions can be "right" or "wrong" since those are only accidental.
I have often said that the ultimate driver of Supreme Court social policy decisions is the principle of "that's the way we like it" (the corollary being "when you sit on the Court, then you can have it the way you like it"). But joking aside, right and wrong depend on what your goals are for society and the basic operating principles and rules you need to achieve (or at least aim for) those goals. If your goals include maximizing individual liberty and guaranteeing equal rights for all, then it is clearly wrong to restrict the benefits, rights and obligations of society to heterosexual citizens only.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:How are the guiding principles "right" in any sense at all other than "we like 'em"? They may be useful but by what principle is it established that what is useful to you must be imposed upon me? "The greater benefit of society" - how is that a good or "right" if even one person disagrees?
That's exactly what political process is for: setting the fundamental goals of society, and then fighting about how to get there. Those who do not agree with the goals are free to look for more felicitous societies elsewhere.
Last edited by Sue U on Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GAH!

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11667
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Crackpot »

Jim

I think the push for a hate crime has more to do with a search for a comprehendible reason. We can understand hate crime for multiple murder. We can understand fight over a parking space for a single or perhaps even a double murder or as the basis of the start of a spree killing. But this just doesn't sit right in our collective psyche. Sure there are just that type of asshole but they are usually either all talk or have already done something to get themselves removed from society. It just doesn't fit.

Heck maybe he just snapped, but when confronted with the "reality" of what he did he came to his senses and turned himself in.

Until we can place things into a convienent box we humans get very uncomfortable. So I can forgive the rush to shove it into a box even though it doesn't fit.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Well put, Sue. Concurrence and chasers all round!
I don't mind a philosophical discussion of morality and religion, but raising it in that context was pretty hostile toward atheists. Or can you only be insulted by criticisms of your belief system if you have religious faith? :shrug
BSG, please don't make a molehill out of a divot. A hostile atheist shot some people dead but not because he's an atheist. He's going to go to court. I made a jocular claim that his defense could be based on the logical conclusion of atheism - the non-existence of actual right and wrong* (other than what we decide to say is right and wrong). How is that an "insult" when it's a fact, as Sue more elegantly explained it above? Ray... Gob... anyone... if you confirm it's an insult then I apologize for it.

*I didn't even say that argument was false. Given the premise of no-God, then it's quite valid.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade, Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:30 am wrote:(PS I bet we can't answer this in anything under a million years! No one else has)
MajGenl.Meade, Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:55 pm wrote:Well put, Sue. Concurrence and chasers all round!
Less than 90 minutes (including lunch break).
GAH!

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

I find the thread title offensive.
Why call him a red neck? Because he had a gun?
This guy was an atheist. I think most red necks are Christian.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Image

Well this one is/was:

Image
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15480
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Joe Guy »

Gun toting redneck...

Image

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20179
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by BoSoxGal »

Ah, I see.

Apparently I can't be offended if nobody else is. Noted.

:roll:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Gob »

However the police have not yet confirmed any motivation in the case beyond a dispute over parking spaces. They've arrested Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, in connection with the shooting of 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Mr Hicks' wife has told the media she does not believe religion was a factor.

So why did people online assume it was a hate crime?

The #ChapelHillShooting hashtag was started by an activist, Abed Ayoub. He's the legal and policy director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a lobby group based in Washington. At the time when he first tweeted about it, details of the crime were still thin on the ground. BBC Trending's Mukul Devichand spoke to him about his decision to highlight the case. Below is an edited transcript of their conversation - you can catch the full discussion on our radio show and podcast on Saturday.


Q. What did you know about the shootings and when did you decide to write your first tweet?

In the initial stages we knew that three of our community members were killed, just the basic facts that a young man, his wife and her sister were murdered. One description said "execution-style" and as soon as we read that, most of us figured that there's probably something there. We have noticed a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment in the US so the first thing of course that popped into our minds, and my mind, was that this could be a potential hate crime.

At the beginning I was hesitant about saying this is a hate crime, I thought "we need to have the investigation go forward", but as bits and pieces of information began coming out, I personally made a determination that there was a high probability this was a hate crime. When you have people killed "execution-style" that doesn't happen in an argument over a parking spot as the police officers are saying. There's something more.

Q. But at the time you gave these events their interpretation on social media, you did not really know what happened?

At the time I was tweeting and others were tweeting, yes, we made the assumption given the circumstances and given the facts, that this was a hate crime. But I think - as one of my other tweets alluded to - you cannot blame the Arab and Muslim community for believing that.

Q. You are the legal and policy director of a major campaigning organisation. By jumping the gun did you undermine the credibility of the case?

No, by jumping the gun I think we opened the dialogue and conversation about the issues we're facing in this community.

“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

bigskygal wrote:Ah, I see. Apparently I can't be offended if nobody else is. Noted.
:roll:
I may not have phrased that very well. I am sorry that you have taken offence at what I wrote but deny that it was in any way whatsoever an "insult" to "atheists". Hence, I asked all other atheists on this board if they thought it was insulting.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
bigskygal wrote:Ah, I see. Apparently I can't be offended if nobody else is. Noted.
:roll:
I may not have phrased that very well. I am sorry that you have taken offence at what I wrote but deny that it was in any way whatsoever an "insult" to "atheists". Hence, I asked all other atheists on this board if they thought it was insulting.
Although I (an atheist, hi!) hesitate to step in here, I will say that while I did roll my eyes when reading the comment in question, I was not insulted, as it seemed to me merely a jokey way to raise an issue that has been the subject of discussion in other threads, and which is a perennial hobbyhorse for Meade, i.e., how do you know what's good/evil, moral/immoral.
GAH!

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
bigskygal wrote:Ah, I see. Apparently I can't be offended if nobody else is. Noted.
:roll:
I may not have phrased that very well. I am sorry that you have taken offence at what I wrote but deny that it was in any way whatsoever an "insult" to "atheists". Hence, I asked all other atheists on this board if they thought it was insulting.
It is not insulting it is amazingly stupid.

But so is your entire "Morality only comes from my particular invisible sky god" spiel.

Morality is a human idea which humans have discovered, invented, realized &c. If morality were a special received wisdom of your church then your church would be a better example of it, instead of worse. And you're a lot worse. (apologies to the Amish and a few other groups who actually appear to live godly lives)

And this is just inane:
Being situational or relative means that no thing is truly "right" or "wrong" - it is merely "what we like" or "what we don't like".
Being situational means that there are often surrounding circumstances which modify the moral or immorality of a particular act in a particular place by a particular person. Refusing to have your children vaccinated because of a false belief that it is dangerous is not immoral. It is an act of factual confusion. Smoking cigarettes when you have limited knowledge of the effects of smoking and have not fully considered how smoking will make you less able to fulfill your commitments to your family and community is not immoral in the same way as doing so when you do know these things.

For someone who makes noise about knowing theology, you don't really.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

How odd. I said nothing about religion or church or being right. So for someone making a noise - you sure sound like a wet fart
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

liberty
Posts: 5003
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by liberty »

CONSIDER THIS QUESTION: If the guy had been a typical Southern redneck would it have then been a hate crime? .
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Sue U »

No.

That was easy!
GAH!

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Gob »

liberty wrote:CONSIDER THIS QUESTION: If the guy had been a typical Southern redneck would it have then been a hate crime? .
If the guy had been a Muslim, would it have been a Southern redneck crime?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

liberty
Posts: 5003
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by liberty »

Sue U wrote:No.

That was easy!
Oh yea, that is what you say now, But just wait:

“ It is good Johnny this and it is good Johnny that..
but it is the bigot of the country when the guns begin to shoot“.

Apologies to Kipling


Rudyard Kipling


Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by Lord Jim »

Refusing to have your children vaccinated because of a false belief that it is dangerous is not immoral. It is an act of factual confusion.
If factual confusion is the way to avoid being immoral, then you're one of the most moral dudes around...
liberty wrote:CONSIDER THIS QUESTION: If the guy had been a typical Southern redneck would it have then been a hate crime? .
There are certainly some who would have lunged to that conclusion but given the same set of facts it wouldn't have been any more valid...

Frankly the media fascination with "hate crimes" really seems especially superfluous when talking abut A TRIPLE HOMICIDE

There's no question that this guy did it; ultimately he's going to be convicted, and either get the death penalty, (which is what he deserves) or life without parole, (which is way to good for him).

If it were a "hate crime" I don't see where tacking on an extra 3 years to a death sentence or life in prison sentence has a whole lot of meaning... :roll:

As I've said a number of times over the years I'm not a big fan of "hate crime" laws in general for a number of reasons; I think they're mainly PC "feel good" laws with an actual deterrent effect that approaches absolute zero...

(Somehow, I just don't think that "Well, I'm not deterred by the laws against murder, but since I might be convicted of a hate crime I better not beat that faggot to death" is a very likely reasoning process...)

Another thing I don't like about "hate crimes" is the way that the media obsession with them tend to detract attention from the actual, real, truly important crime...

Which in this case I'll repeat is, A TRIPLE HOMICIDE...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21506
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Gun toting red neck

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

“It was execution-style, a bullet in every head,” the women’s father, Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha, a psychiatrist, told the Raleigh News-Observer. “This was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. And they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far.”

Abu-Salha said his daughter, who lived next door to Hicks, wore a Muslim head scarf and told her family a week ago that she had “a hateful neighbor.”

“'Honest to God, he hates us for what we are and how we look,’” the distraught father quoted his daughter as saying.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply