Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:09 am

I'm probably getting into something that might not be my business but I am guessing that Lieris had to deal with a lot of discrimination in their life, judging from the strong reactions to specific topics.

I'd say if someone is a victim of something, of course you are gonna lash out at anyone that defends similar behaviors to the one you were a victim of. Or at least that you perceive as defending such actions.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:28 am

Shoju wrote:Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as long as you believe the same things that I do.


How is the left any different?
It's not talking points, and rhetoric, and memes.


You honestly don't think "American Taliban" isn't rhetoric and a meme? It's a staggeringly effective meme that hits all kinds of notes that resonate some very powerful emotions. That doesn't mean it's accurate, and it builds strawmen that make it harder to have a real dialogue, when both sides are too busy tilting at imaginary windmills.

If I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't done intentionally by those in power.

WRT the Zimmerman Trial, it is hard to say that this one case will spur more vigilante behavior -- it's not like there aren't plenty of other similar cases on the books. This one is unique because it became so highly politicized; I think it is far more likely that there will be a lot of knee-jerk anti-SYG legislation (even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial) -- which will result in many more people being successfully prosecuted for self-defense.

Again, if I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't also in line with what the DoJ might want.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Flex » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:33 pm

(even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial)


Just because it wasn't invoked by the defense doesn't mean it was irrelevant to the trial.

The Judge's final jury instructions included the phrase "stand his ground".

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify
the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George
Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force
, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Juror B-37 quote of "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right." seems to imply that SYG was relevant towards the verdict.

The Defense arguing that Trayvon was the dominate one in the attack preventing Zimmerman from fleeing could have been weakened by using a SYG defense but works with a standard self-defense justifiable homicide defense.

Could be argued that the JudgeJury members are idiots and are mixing up the legal backgrounds between SYG and Self-Defense.
We live in a society where people born on third base constantly try to steal second, yet we expect people born with two strikes against them to hit a homerun on the first pitch.
User avatar
Flex
 
Posts: 7500
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:43 pm

I don't think anyone will disagree that this would not have happened if he had staid in his vehicle.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:04 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:
Shoju wrote:Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... as long as you believe the same things that I do.


How is the left any different?


Wait....

Wanting women to have the final say over their body
Wanting all people to be allowed to be married regardless of if their significant other is the same sex
Wanting to make sure that education, mental health, and health care are taken care of for all of our citizens,
and making sure that public assistance is available for those in need

is somehow trying to take away people's rights? Really? Man, I'm such a bastard for thinking that way.

I'm not telling people that they can't get married because it violates the teachings of my religion. I'm not telling women that even though SCOTUS gave them control over their bodies that I'm actively fighting against that. I'm not even telling Evangelicals and Fundamentalists that they are stupid for believing in God.

I want EVERYONE regardless of age, race, sex, and orientation to enjoy the same rights. I'm not telling people of faith that I want to close their churches. I'm telling them to stop trying to run everyone else's life by their beliefs. I'm telling them that this nation is not a theocracy, and it shouldn't be run as one. This nation isn't even founded as a Christian Nation, as was specifically noted, signed, and ratified in a treaty by one of the founding fathers, and unanimously ratified by congress at the time.

I'm saying, that if the Republican party truly still stood for less government intrusion in the private lives of it's citizens as is one of the foundational parts of their platform, they would stop being so fucking stupid about abortion, and gay marriage.

But yeah, I'm totally over here on the left telling people that they can't live their life how they want. :roll:

You honestly don't think "American Taliban" isn't rhetoric and a meme? It's a staggeringly effective meme that hits all kinds of notes that resonate some very powerful emotions. That doesn't mean it's accurate, and it builds strawmen that make it harder to have a real dialogue, when both sides are too busy tilting at imaginary windmills.


Is it hyperbolic? Probably. But there are grains of truth in it. There is a legitimate portion of the Right that is trying to exert control over the citizens of the United States based on a fundamental religious structure. It just so happens that Gay Marriage, and Abortion are the two easiest targets to point at. We could look at the ridiculousness of Kentucky, and their pushing of creationism to be taught in science alongside accepted science. We could look at many other examples if you wanted, but the easiest targets are the stances on Abortion and Gay Marriage.

And yes, Fridmarr, I will admit that there are those who oppose abortion on a scientific standing. And I am quite alright with that, and I think that is a noteworthy, and interesting position to take. I'm more than willing to engage in that dialogue. But let's not think for one second that the majority of the talking is being done by people who oppose it on a moral / religious standing, and not on a basis of science.

fuzzygeek wrote:If I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't done intentionally by those in power.


Well, probably, because we keep electing dumbshits on both sides of the aisle.

fuzzygeek wrote:WRT the Zimmerman Trial, it is hard to say that this one case will spur more vigilante behavior -- it's not like there aren't plenty of other similar cases on the books. This one is unique because it became so highly politicized; I think it is far more likely that there will be a lot of knee-jerk anti-SYG legislation (even if SYG wasn't invoked in the Zimmerman trial) -- which will result in many more people being successfully prosecuted for self-defense.

Again, if I were more paranoid I might wonder if this wasn't also in line with what the DoJ might want.


It's not just the Zimmerman trial. It's all the cases, like you said. Couple trials like this, and the loopholes in gun laws exposed by the Aurora Co Shooting (I'm speaking specifically, to the last report I read that showed that at least his firearms were legally purchased), and we are setting up a situation where Vigilante behavior is defendable, and acceptable. This is just the latest example.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6351
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:31 pm

I gotta second shoju on pretty much everything.

Should be noted that this does not mean i am giving a free pass on the left, which has done pretty bad recently, but hey.... Lesser of two evils.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:11 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Yeah, we are on different wavelengths or something. 
 
You actually just kind of answered the question, though you then tried to use the answer in an illogical way.  Based on that post, you believe that Zimmerman would have been "right" had Martin jumped him on the way back to his truck.  That's pretty much the question I was asking, and that's it.  I'm not at all certain that the answer to that question is cut and dry. You seem to think that it is?

I was pointing out that it was a dumb question, is all. Your hypothetical - if he was jumped on the way back to his car - makes it self-defense, and as such he wouldn't technically be a murderer. Hence your question was "If it wasn't murder, would you still think he was a murderer?" Which is a dumb fucking question.


Anyway.

As Shoju mentioned a few posts up, on the whole "open season on black kids" thing. Zimmerman was wrong to go following some kid around because of his suspicions. But the verdict sends the message to lots of other people that there's nothing wrong with doing that.

It's only a matter of time before someone sees somebody "suspicious" (and they're likely to be culturally primed to associate black males with crime) and thinks that following them and forcing a confrontation is okay because of this verdict.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6830
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:11 pm

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/fox_new ... _in_chief/
Fox news host: Obama is “Race-Baiter in Chief”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... -baiter-in (this link provides other similar tweets by the same host)
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:13 pm

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/J ... In_Dissent
TLDR: "Dear Supreme Court: Your Voting Rights Act decision was a pathetic piece of garbage with absolutely horrible legal reasoning, not to mention a complete betrayal of the principles you claim to believe in. Sincerely, Justice John Paul Stevens"
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:24 pm

Zimmerman invited confrontation when he followed, both in car and on foot, the "suspect". If I was walking through a neighborhood minding my own business and someone decided to stalk me, I might decide that I could defend myself by way of SYG. We don't know what happened because there were no witnesses, but presuming the "suspect" was innocent - as required by US law - the "suspect" had the right to stand his ground against a suspicious person following him. For all he knew, the "suspect" was in danger of being mugged.

"... the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."

I completely disagree.

There was another reasonable course, which was to avoid the confrontation by not pursuing. Zimmerman must not have believed the danger was real because he pursued the person. When faced with danger, humans respond with "fight or flight". As he clearly did not choose "flight", it is logical to conclude that he chose "fight" as evidenced by his pursuit. Had he believed the danger was real, he would have stayed in his car and waited for the police.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:09 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Yeah, we are on different wavelengths or something. 
 
You actually just kind of answered the question, though you then tried to use the answer in an illogical way.  Based on that post, you believe that Zimmerman would have been "right" had Martin jumped him on the way back to his truck.  That's pretty much the question I was asking, and that's it.  I'm not at all certain that the answer to that question is cut and dry. You seem to think that it is?

I was pointing out that it was a dumb question, is all. Your hypothetical - if he was jumped on the way back to his car - makes it self-defense, and as such he wouldn't technically be a murderer. Hence your question was "If it wasn't murder, would you still think he was a murderer?" Which is a dumb fucking question.

It is a dumb fucking question only if Martin jumping Zimmerman automatically makes it self defense. You seem to think that it obviously does, and so therefore my question is illogical because if it is obviously self defense they why am I asking if it's murder. However, others have posted to the contrary. Indicating that by following Martin, Zimmerman was the aggressor regardless, and not justified. Even suggesting that Martin jumping Zimmerman could be construed as self defense for Martin, who could have felt threatened by being followed. Those are valid answers, which give credence to the question. Are you able to understand that now?

As for the rest...I'd love to go off a bit on the problems with both parties but it's like pissing in the wind at this point. This thread is pretty much lost.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:19 pm

*insert tiny violin here*

also, insert Daily Show -- http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... evelopment
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11092
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:01 am

Fridmarr wrote:It is a dumb fucking question only if Martin jumping Zimmerman automatically makes it self defense. You seem to think that it obviously does, and so therefore my question is illogical because if it is obviously self defense they why am I asking if it's murder. However, others have posted to the contrary. Indicating that by following Martin, Zimmerman was the aggressor regardless, and not justified. Even suggesting that Martin jumping Zimmerman could be construed as self defense for Martin, who could have felt threatened by being followed. Those are valid answers, which give credence to the question. Are you able to understand that now?

Your question wasn't about if Martin jumped him because Zimmerman had forced a confrontation. You asked what if Martin had jumped him when he was on his way back to his truck, that is, after he'd stopped following Martin.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6830
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:43 am

Yes Kysen, and you believe the answer to that is obvious that that automatically makes it self defense for Zimmerman. I asked because I didn't know if everyone felt the same, and from the posts I don't think everyone does.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:26 am

Just to get back to my last post (damn this not being able to spend more time than ~30 minutes per day on the computer).

I actually have no problem with "carrer" politicians. We have a paper over here that has this idea that they have to rag on politicians for being politicians (and is the primary perptuator of politicians are overpayed and do no work), which, in my opinion, is downright antidemocratic (people do not want to become politicians, because politicans are, apparently, only after a high pay and no work).
Fact of the matter, politicians are not very highly payed when you look at comparative responsibility jobs, and the main reason to pay politicians highly - the same reason judges and law enforcement officers should be payed highly - to make corruption less likely, by making the gain relatively small, with the risk being relatively high. The "high" pay of politicians, in my opinion, is one of the reasons that Denmark is usually at or very near the top of the "low corruption" list (can't remember the official name).

I don't think term limits are the problem in the US - from what I'm seeing, the problem is the 2-party system (and the same is true in the UK, though they have more than 2 parties). That you have a district that elects 1 person, that makes any more than 2 parties a problem, as any similarly aligned parties will only ake the election of a common opponent more likely, because of votesplits (example; 60% are left leaning and 40% right leaning, but there are 2 left leaning partis and 1 right leaning - the right leaning guy gets the 40% and the left leaning parties split the 60%, making it more likely that 40% is the majority for the district).
With a 2 party system, you get the shakesperian plague on both the houses, making "independent"* voters less likely to vote, which is a democratic problem in itself.

Honestly I would support a "voter rights test", required to be able to vote, if one could be shown to be unbiased towards any party or leaning, but simply require actually knowing a thing or two about voting (like what am I actually voting for here?).

Similarly to this, I have to agree with Churchill - Democracy is the owrst form of government... except that no other forms have historically been better (last part paraphrased).

Running for office is really hard to do while trying to actually do "the right thing". Doing whats right for an administered region (be that county, country or other) will, inevitably, be unpopular with a significant portion of possible voters, which means that doing "the righ thing" can doom your own reelection - there is a reason second term presidents have an easier time doing the big stuff, they don't have to worry about getting reelected.


* - independent here meaning thos ethat are not invested in a party, thus including people that could vote but haven't registered etc.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest
?php } else { ?