Guns, Cows, and the BLM

Paleocon wrote:

Perhaps it is a bit of schadenfreude, but I don't see any great tragedy in violent dumbasses getting their righteous consequences.

There's nothing wrong with schadenfreude, and I don't think it's a great tragedy when they do get smacked down, either. It's just that given the way you usually talk about people who have hard-ons for violence (holster sniffers, etc), it's a bit off that you seem to enjoy it so much when the violence they were hoping to inflict on others is inflicted on them instead. It gives the impression that you're just as violent and confrontational as they are, but smart enough to direct it towards more socially acceptable targets. Also smart enough to not start anything yourself.

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Perhaps it is a bit of schadenfreude, but I don't see any great tragedy in violent dumbasses getting their righteous consequences.

There's nothing wrong with schadenfreude, and I don't think it's a great tragedy when they do get smacked down, either. It's just that given the way you usually talk about people who have hard-ons for violence (holster sniffers, etc), it's a bit off that you seem to enjoy it so much when the violence they were hoping to inflict on others is inflicted on them instead. It gives the impression that you're just as violent and confrontational as they are, but smart enough to direct it towards more socially acceptable targets. Also smart enough to not start anything yourself.

The phrase you're looking for there is "karmic retribution."

Stengah wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Perhaps it is a bit of schadenfreude, but I don't see any great tragedy in violent dumbasses getting their righteous consequences.

There's nothing wrong with schadenfreude, and I don't think it's a great tragedy when they do get smacked down, either. It's just that given the way you usually talk about people who have hard-ons for violence (holster sniffers, etc), it's a bit off that you seem to enjoy it so much when the violence they were hoping to inflict on others is inflicted on them instead. It gives the impression that you're just as violent and confrontational as they are, but smart enough to direct it towards more socially acceptable targets. Also smart enough to not start anything yourself.

Again, this. Replace your definition of fire with theirs and it's remarkably similar again. And since you're advocating for killing them rather than something like a trial, it really doesn't make a big difference to me that your definition of fire is right and theirs is wrong.

jdzappa wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Does everything always have to be equally disturbing or remarkably similar sounding? I mean, if you guys honestly feel that way, then okay. I just wonder if the problem is that the conversation is about to lose anything but these two polar opposites. Put me in the "yes, people who want the government to violently enforce this order when there are more peaceful means of doing so are wrong, but they're not even close to being as wrong as the dumbasses" camp.

I'm not really in either extreme camp. I'm just making an aside.

And I refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.

Huge difference between calling these guys out for being wrong and supporting them going to jail - which is something that many conservatives also feel right now - and gleefully talking about "cleansing the gene pool" and "splattering brain pans."

Let's say LAPD went into a gang situation half-cocked and killed a bunch of kids. Would it be cool if say Nomad or Norman or me said something like "well I guess that's what you get for living in the hood. Glad to see the po po clean up the gene pool though?" Not only would we thoroughly lashed for being sociopathic racist a-holes, but we'd probably be insta-banned.

Not precisely the same thing. In none of the cases I referenced above did I advocate indiscriminately killing kids or shrugging my shoulders over collateral damage because of where folks lived. And I certainly didn't advocate some kind of social darwinism and ethnic cleansing.

What I DID say is that I didn't see the great tragedy in violent folks who present a clear and present threat in their immediate actions reaping the consequences of their actions. Point a deadly weapon at a federal agent, shoot up a building, bomb a bunch of race spectators, or punch a US senator and, yeah, I will sit back and watch while you take the vicious beatdown or worse.

jdzappa wrote:

Huge difference between calling these guys out for being wrong and supporting them going to jail - which is something that many conservatives also feel right now - and gleefully talking about "cleansing the gene pool" and "splattering brain pans."

Woah dude - slow down.

(you forgot we're also huge racists and only care because they're white)

NormanTheIntern wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Huge difference between calling these guys out for being wrong and supporting them going to jail - which is something that many conservatives also feel right now - and gleefully talking about "cleansing the gene pool" and "splattering brain pans."

Woah dude - slow down.

(you forgot we're also huge racists and only care because they're white)

I think you're misinterpreting him. But this was funny either way.

Because Fox News and the conservative media outlets would totally stand up for a rancher with Mexican heritage when he wants to freeload on the public dime?

Demosthenes wrote:

Because Fox News and the conservative media outlets would totally stand up for a rancher with Mexican heritage when he wants to freeload on the public dime?

Or, say, ancestors of the Shoshone people whose land was basically stolen by Bundy's ancestors.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...

edit: here's a better writeup: http://www.dailyyonder.com/speak-you...

SixteenBlue wrote:

gain, this. Replace your definition of fire with theirs and it's remarkably similar again. And since you're advocating for killing them rather than something like a trial, it really doesn't make a big difference to me that your definition of fire is right and theirs is wrong.

Really? Shouldn't that kinda be the thing that makes a big difference?

Demosthenes wrote:

Because Fox News and the conservative media outlets would totally stand up for a rancher with Mexican heritage when he wants to freeload on the public dime?

Correct, they have 100% stood up for hispanic minorities when railroaded by government overreach in the past

Spoiler:

George Zimmerman

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Because Fox News and the conservative media outlets would totally stand up for a rancher with Mexican heritage when he wants to freeload on the public dime?

Correct, they have 100% stood up for hispanic minorities when railroaded by government overreach in the past

Spoiler:

George Zimmerman

Oh, man. That is dark. But I have to admit, I lolled a little.

But seriously, a non-investigation by the cops of a former "sunset town," and a reluctant prosecutor nudged only by bad PR? That's not government overreach; that's a government reach-around.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

gain, this. Replace your definition of fire with theirs and it's remarkably similar again. And since you're advocating for killing them rather than something like a trial, it really doesn't make a big difference to me that your definition of fire is right and theirs is wrong.

Really? Shouldn't that kinda be the thing that makes a big difference?

Not really. Everyone deserves due process, regardless of right or wrong.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

gain, this. Replace your definition of fire with theirs and it's remarkably similar again. And since you're advocating for killing them rather than something like a trial, it really doesn't make a big difference to me that your definition of fire is right and theirs is wrong.

Really? Shouldn't that kinda be the thing that makes a big difference?

Not really. Everyone deserves due process, regardless of right or wrong.

I'm pretty sure the issue isn't with results; it's with Paleo's gleeful descriptions of violence in this, and many other threads crossing the line into being disgusting in and of themselves.

Tanglebones wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

gain, this. Replace your definition of fire with theirs and it's remarkably similar again. And since you're advocating for killing them rather than something like a trial, it really doesn't make a big difference to me that your definition of fire is right and theirs is wrong.

Really? Shouldn't that kinda be the thing that makes a big difference?

Not really. Everyone deserves due process, regardless of right or wrong.

I'm pretty sure the issue isn't with results; it's with Paleo's gleeful descriptions of violence in this, and many other threads crossing the line into being disgusting in and of themselves.

Yeah I've kind of segued into an almost separate point but that was the initial gist. Thanks.

Hey! How did I get roped into this?

Nomad wrote:

Hey! How did I get roped into this?

It's because of your 'Justified' avatar!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Because Fox News and the conservative media outlets would totally stand up for a rancher with Mexican heritage when he wants to freeload on the public dime?

Correct, they have 100% stood up for hispanic minorities when railroaded by government overreach in the past

Spoiler:

George Zimmerman

IMAGE(http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/supernatural8os4H.jpeg)

I would certainly hope that social services is recording evidence of Mr. Mack desiring to use his wife and children as human shields. They should absolutely be taken away from him. Protesting is fine no matter the cause. Martyring is not.

It is one thing, if the coin were flipped, if he wanted his wife and children to protest civil rights. But the cause is not the issue. If he was quoted as wanting to martyr his wife and children for civil rights or our dependence on oil or for PETA, his children should be taken away from him just the same.

Hey, kazooka found exactly the reaction I had.

Tanglebones wrote:
Malor wrote:

Note that we were talking about military vehicles. If you're setting your military, or your police armed like military, against your own citizens, YOU have the problem, not the citizens.

Seems like that boat sailed when we began drastically weakening the government's ability to keep military grade equipment out of the hands of civilians.

Uh, what? It would be awesome (though expensive) to buy military grade equipment, where might I purchase this stuff and what's for sale, exactly? Cause otherwise you sound loco.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Malor wrote:

Note that we were talking about military vehicles. If you're setting your military, or your police armed like military, against your own citizens, YOU have the problem, not the citizens.

Seems like that boat sailed when we began drastically weakening the government's ability to keep military grade equipment out of the hands of civilians.

Uh, what? It would be awesome (though expensive) to buy military grade equipment, where might I purchase this stuff and what's for sale, exactly? Cause otherwise you sound loco.

He's probably talking about AR-15's.

fangblackbone wrote:

I would certainly hope that social services is recording evidence of Mr. Mack desiring to use his wife and children as human shields. They should absolutely be taken away from him. Protesting is fine no matter the cause. Martyring is not.

It is one thing, if the coin were flipped, if he wanted his wife and children to protest civil rights. But the cause is not the issue. If he was quoted as wanting to martyr his wife and children for civil rights or our dependence on oil or for PETA, his children should be taken away from him just the same.

Ephesians 5:22-23 wrote:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church

To be fair, Paul is one end of the scale of women's role in the family. Jesus seems to have thought differently, but of course Paul had to change the church to make it appeal to Gentiles, and this is one of the changes he seems to have introduced. Jesus had a number of female disciples, and Paul refers to a female apostle, Junia, in Romans 16. Given that Jesus had accepted her as an apostle, and Paul does too, as a contemporary, but Paul also explicitly removes women from the Church as leaders, it's safe to say that this is indeed a change from Jesus' practice.

Come celebrate TOTAL FREEDOM at BUNDYFEST, just across the road from the Cliven Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, Nevada! 240 bands, 24 hours a day, for a SOLID ROCKIN’ MONTH!!!!

- NO PERMITS REQUIRED
- CAMP ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE
- FULL NUDITY NOT A PROBLEM
- GAY-FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE
- PENIS ERECTION CONTEST: Erect the largest penis in the open desert, win valuable prize! (tbd)

BACKGROUND: For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada. But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!

OG_slinger wrote:
Come celebrate TOTAL FREEDOM at BUNDYFEST, just across the road from the Cliven Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, Nevada! 240 bands, 24 hours a day, for a SOLID ROCKIN’ MONTH!!!!

- NO PERMITS REQUIRED
- CAMP ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE
- FULL NUDITY NOT A PROBLEM
- GAY-FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE
- PENIS ERECTION CONTEST: Erect the largest penis in the open desert, win valuable prize! (tbd)

BACKGROUND: For years, we paid permitting fees to hold Burning Man on the beautiful Playa in Northern Nevada. But now, Cliven Bundy has shown us a NEW WAY! ABSOLUTE FREEDOM! Bundy has declared the entire area surrounding Bundy Ranch as a TOTALLY RULES-FREE ZONE! ANYTHING GOES! WOO-HOO!!!

LOL. picture of Ted Bundy on the binder was priceless.

OG_slinger wrote:

Come celebrate TOTAL FREEDOM at BUNDYFEST, just across the road from the Cliven Bundy Ranch, in Bunkerville, Nevada! 240 bands, 24 hours a day, for a SOLID ROCKIN’ MONTH!!!!

So good.

How about we take a look at those verses in context a minute?

Ephesians 5:21-33 wrote:

21 And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.

31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” 32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. 33 So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Robear wrote:

To be fair, Paul is one end of the scale of women's role in the family. Jesus seems to have thought differently, but of course Paul had to change the church to make it appeal to Gentiles, and this is one of the changes he seems to have introduced. Jesus had a number of female disciples, and Paul refers to a female apostle, Junia, in Romans 16. Given that Jesus had accepted her as an apostle, and Paul does too, as a contemporary, but Paul also explicitly removes women from the Church as leaders, it's safe to say that this is indeed a change from Jesus' practice.

That is a fair bit of extrapolation there. Jesus had female followers, but none of the recorded 12( or 13) disciples he gave leadership roles to were women. Paul really changes nothing. There is no biblical evidence that Junia was an apostle. Romans 16:7 says she and Andronicus were well known or respected by the apostles, not one of them. Paul doesn't bar women from church leadership, just from leadership over men. He actually encourages the older women to step up and lead the younger women of the church by both word and example. In a culture where women were considered property, and a women could not even testify as a witness in court because she was considered untrustworthy due only to her gender, the early church view of women treated with respect and wives with sacrificial love was almost unheard of. This idea that Paul teaches a different gospel than Christ is quite popular among certain circles, but under scrutiny falls apart rather quickly.

Ugh. We're discussing cattle, not chattel. I'm sorry I drug that there book o' your'n into this.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Ugh. We're discussing cattle, not chattel. I'm sorry I drug that there book o' your'n into this.

Fair enough, just wanted to be clear that using your wife as a bullet shield is probably not going to be classified as sacrificial love, er, well, maybe sacrificial, but definitely not the intended meaning.