Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 551

Thread: US Representative Shot in Arizona + Fantasies/Falsehoods about Dreadnt and Guns

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's really not much more different than using the phrase "lynching", is it?
    You tell me. It was only from reading various news sites where prominent Jews expressed their dismay at the use of "Blood Libel" that I even knew about it.

    Certain words DO have relative context, sometimes only important to certain groups. That's kind of the point---that our leaders should know their history and choose their words with care, or at least choose smart people to help them write speeches. If they surround themselves with a bunch or ignorant yahoos, that will effect diplomacy.

  2. #302
    Indeed, to some people saying "lynching" has a particular context. Does that mean the word has been banished from the lexicon?

    People were accusing "the right" generally and Palin specifically of being accomplices to murder. There are only so many ways you can describe that kind of accusation.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Indeed, to some people saying "lynching" has a particular context. Does that mean the word has been banished from the lexicon?
    Not at all. But if you're a public figure with an audience of millions, and you KNOW your speeches will be taped and shown on the internet for everyone to see within a nanosecond, wouldn't you avoid using the word "lynching" in any context?

    People were accusing "the right" generally and Palin specifically of being accomplices to murder. There are only so many ways you can describe that kind of accusation.
    Maybe some "people" were doing that, but no one at TWF was doing that. I accused Palin of being cavalier with her speech, and the latest thing on Blood Libel just confirms that. That's not to say that the left isn't guilty too. It's a bipartisan mistake, using charged rhetoric to get folks charged up.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    He was convicted of deliberately lying about an opponent during the election - a type of electoral fraud - in a specially convened election court. Was the first time it's happened in a Westminster election in 99 years. This fell under part of electoral law. Although after the media said for months it was the first time this law had been used in 99 years it turned out it had been used to disqualify a local Councillor who'd deliberately and falsely accused an opponent of being a Paedophile in an election leaflet earlier in the decade.

    There are 4 ways I know of for an MP to lose the seat:
    1: Have the election declared void (which happened following the court-case).
    2: Being convicted and sentenced for 12 months or more in prison (automatic disqualification and by-election).
    3: MPs in Westminster have the power to evict an MP, I don't know the full regulations but this hasn't happened since 1947 when a Labour MP was expelled from Westminster after selling PLP information to a newspaper. This nearly happened just now following a sitting Labour MP's conviction for expenses fraud. Following the conviction he'll likely get a 12 month sentence but if he didn't the other MP's would expel him if he didn't quit.
    4: Take a seat in the Lords, or "payment from the Crown" aka the "Chiltern Hundreds" job (technically you can't resign being an MP, the "Chiltern Hundreds" disqualifies you so is the way to resign).
    Thanks for that. You Brits and your quirky ways!

  5. #305
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    ...Maybe some "people" were doing that, but no one at TWF was doing that. I accused Palin of being cavalier with her speech, and the latest thing on Blood Libel just confirms that. That's not to say that the left isn't guilty too. It's a bipartisan mistake, using charged rhetoric to get folks charged up.
    Well since Palin was not responding to TWFers but to those on the left that decided to go after her...what's your point?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Well since Palin was not responding to TWFers but to those on the left that decided to go after her...what's your point?
    LOL

  7. #307
    Something Stephen Fry noticed on the way we use speech. We have no problem saying: "Traffic was murder", or "This is killing me", or "Watching that play was torture". All perfectly acceptable. But there is a taboo on the word "fuck".

    For some reason we don't mind using words that have terrible connotations and they're perfectly acceptable, but when we dare refer to a pleasurable activity it's considered rude.

    Try explaining that to the Aliens when they land here.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You mean definitive data, that's not specific by area? Comparing general emergency room census with border states (immigration), gang presence (border states plus urban centers), urban vs suburban vs rural? No, I don't have that fact sheet off hand. Would one fact sheet convince you, anyway? Specific data collection has a lagging factor. Whether it's violent trauma or communicable diseases.
    No, I mean comparing now to the past. Whether specific, general or whatever. You said "there are more GSWs and violent assaults than ever." Key words "than ever." Why did you say that? What evidence do you have for that.
    But we can make a general assumption about severity and impact, by what emergency departments and first responders are focusing on.
    No, we can show that may be a priority now but it demonstrates nothing about now versus the past.

    Ziggy: While a good observation, murder, killing, torture etc are not used regularly as swear-words, on the other hand a minor equivalent one is "bloody" - not pleasurable but it is frequently a swear word.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Something Stephen Fry noticed on the way we use speech. We have no problem saying: "Traffic was murder", or "This is killing me", or "Watching that play was torture". All perfectly acceptable. But there is a taboo on the word "fuck".

    For some reason we don't mind using words that have terrible connotations and they're perfectly acceptable, but when we dare refer to a pleasurable activity it's considered rude.

    Try explaining that to the Aliens when they land here.
    Blame the Victorians and their prudishness.

    The word was not an obscenity before they came along and fucked things up.

    ~

    Interesting dynamic though. In pre-Victorian times it was blasphemous words which were taboo. Saying 'My God!' or 'Jesus' as an exclamation, like we all do every day, were outrageous curses in pre-victorian times and not to be uttered lightly. Yet currently taboo words like cunt didn't have anything like the stigma they do now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  10. #310
    For some reason I doubt that pre-Victorian gentlemen would never have used that word either anyway.

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Ziggy: While a good observation, murder, killing, torture etc are not used regularly as swear-words.
    Indeed. That's the whole point. Their connotations would cover the emotion a swear word is meant to convey more closely, so why aren't they used as swear words?
    on the other hand a minor equivalent one is "bloody" - not pleasurable but it is frequently a swear word.
    Sure. I'm not stating a general rule, just an oddity of language in specific cases.

    Bloody Victorians.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  12. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'd "heard" Westboro was planning to protest at her funeral procession , and a Tucson community group was planning to surround the procession with people wearing angel wings to block out any offensive signs. Not sure if that came to pass. Really, would Westboro stoop that low?
    Westboro was bribed with airtime on two radio stations to keep them from showing up, and they didn't. The angel wing people did anyways. Those things are incredibly stupid looking.

  13. #313
    That's even fucking tackier than the Westboro jackasses.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  14. #314
    Newsflash 1: Americans didn't fall for the blood libel.

    Poll: Conservatives not to blame for Ariz. shooting

    By Susan Page, USA TODAY

    WASHINGTON — Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

    A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. About a third, 35%, say it is a legitimate point about how dangerous language can be.

    And there is little sense that stricter gun control laws in Arizona might have averted the tragedy. Only one in five say they would have prevented the shooting; 72% say tighter controls wouldn't have prevented it.

    Meanwhile, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin posted a statement and a video on her Facebook page denouncing criticism that she bore some responsibility for the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The congresswoman was one of 20 congressional Democrats whom Palin had targeted for defeat in November's elections on a map showing their congressional districts in cross hairs.

    "Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," Palin wrote. "This is reprehensible."

    The phrase "blood libel" is a false slur against Jews that has been used for centuries to justify their persecution.

    There are partisan differences in views of the shooting. Even among Democrats, however, a third say it isn't legitimate to single out conservatives' language for criticism; just over half say it is legitimate. Seven in 10 Republicans call that analysis mostly an attempt to make conservatives look bad.

    In the poll, the public is precisely evenly divided on whether the heated language generally used in politics today was a factor in the shooting: 42% say yes, 42% say no. Another 15% have no opinion.

    Those who see political rhetoric as a factor are almost evenly divided over whether it was a major one or a minor one.

    Most of those surveyed see inflammatory language being used by both Republicans and Democrats. And the Tea Party movement gets slightly less blame than the two major parties, although the difference is too small to be statistically significant.

    Fifty-three percent say Republicans and their supporters have gone too far in using inflammatory language; 51% say that of Democrats; 49% say it of Tea Party supporters.


    The poll of 1,002 adults, taken Tuesday, has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

    J Street, a political organization for Jews and supporters of Israel, criticized Palin's choice of words.

    "The term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds," Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street president, said in a statement. "When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."
    Newsflash 2: Not all Jews are up in arms about using the phrase "blood libel", because as a rhetorical device it's ultimately more about false accusations of murder than about Jews.

    HOUSES OF WORSHIP | JANUARY 14, 2011

    Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'

    Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder.

    By SHMULEY BOTEACH

    The term "blood libel"—which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.—is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.

    The term connotes the earliest accusations that Jews killed Jesus and enthusiastically embraced responsibility for his murder, telling Pontius Pilate, "His blood be upon us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). Thus was born the legend of Jewish bloodlust and of Hebrew ritual use of Christian blood for sacramental purposes. The term was later used more specifically to describe accusations against Jews—primarily in Europe—of sacrificing kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in the baking of Passover matzos.

    The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.

    Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

    The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

    Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."

    Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

    Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

    How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

    To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

    Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" (Vanguard, 2011). He will shortly publish a book on the Jewishness of Jesus and his murder at Roman hands.
    FYI "Rabbi Shmuley" is a notable public figure in American Judaism: http://www.shmuley.com/

  15. #315
    J-Street is a left-wing organization. What do you expect?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #316
    I'm not sure how much a non-US person can bring into this whole discussion. The American culture (air quotes if you'd like) is so banal, sick and twisted when viewed from the outside that it becomes impossible to have a reasonable exchange on things such as carrying guns to a political rally. The connotations and subtext, and the assumptions thereon, are so different that the English language fails, especially over an internet forum. What happened was dreadful, but it's also pretty par for the course in the current American climate and, for example, European criticism of that is pretty meaningless since we can't judge the people on their own values.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    Blame the Victorians and their prudishness.

    The word was not an obscenity before they came along and fucked things up.

    ~

    Interesting dynamic though. In pre-Victorian times it was blasphemous words which were taboo. Saying 'My God!' or 'Jesus' as an exclamation, like we all do every day, were outrageous curses in pre-victorian times and not to be uttered lightly. Yet currently taboo words like cunt didn't have anything like the stigma they do now.
    When they started filming Deadwood, after a couple of days they decided to change the script completely because they were swearing in terms considered swears at the time, which made them "sound like Yosemite Sam". So came to be the series of scatological swears instead of the blasphemous, and all the better for it.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    What happened was dreadful, but it's also pretty par for the course in the current American climate
    Nein. The whole issue is this isn't par for the course in the current American climate. So unusual even Lisbeth Salander couldn't find a conspiratorial pattern.

  18. #318
    Poor phrasing on my part; it was bound to happen with the hostility engendered mostly by the Pubbies. You haven't had a political assassination in decades, and arguably this guy was a random loon who was going to shoot someone his mind saw as a representative of the Orwellian machinery he saw around him.

    This is what the climate was begging for, and now it's sorry it happened. Not all that unusual in human affairs.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  19. #319
    Except that everyone knows that the climate isn't begging for it, he was a complete nutball. They just found photos of him in a red G-string posting with a gun in front of his crotch. This is quasi Silence of the Lambs shit. The need to turn the blame inward is not constructive in this case, the guy wasn't really on anyone's wavelength.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Except that everyone knows .
    Are these 'everyone' the American people you purport to speak for?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  21. #321
    Nessus, the guy seemed to get his information from conspiracy theory websites and added his own brand of lunacy to them (a la kathaksung). This kind of stuff has been around for decades, and exists as much in the US as on the other side of the pond.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #322
    So it was about time it happened over there, then?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  23. #323
    Is the fact that this shooter mentally ill and detached from reality really in dispute?'

    Or do you just feel the need to "make something" out of this tragedy?

    What's one more body amongst the foundations?

  24. #324
    Whom are you addressing?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  25. #325
    You. Because you seem to think that lunatic rampages are uniquely American cultural artifact.

  26. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You. Because you seem to think that lunatic rampages are uniquely American cultural artifact.
    Could you highlight and quote the passage of my writing you are thinking of? It is important for me to reinforce my grasp of the language should I wish to be a serious professional, so I am curious where I am currently failing.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  27. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    So it was about time it happened over there, then?
    I think the only thing you can really blame America for in this case is having lax gun laws (especially Arizona). The guy would have still tried to kill people, but probably wouldn't kill as many as he did.

    Also, America treats people with mental health issues differently to many European countries. People here aren't forced to undergo a mental evaluation unless they're an immediate threat to themselves or others. The guy would probably be in an insane asylum in much of Western Europe.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I think the only thing you can really blame America for in this case is having lax gun laws (especially Arizona). The guy would have still tried to kill people, but probably wouldn't kill as many as he did.
    Are you sure you want to say that as an American citizen? I'm sure Enoch the Red or someone can show to you, statistically, how unimportant the US penchant for weaponry really is. And in all fairness to him, a guy could've done the same shit here or in most of Euro-land.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  29. #329
    On average, I think the effect of gun laws washes out, which isn't to say that some specific incidents aren't caused or prevented by those laws.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #330
    On average, things happen? That's an astute observation worthy of a phD in China, I hear.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •