posted
Weren't you somebody or other's flunky, back in the day? Did they release you from that? Because if not, then no; I'm afraid you can't be Rakesh's crony.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was celia's minion, and I'm pretty sure I was something to Ralphie, but I don't remember if the term was "flunky". And of course I was Pat's clone or some such.
So who died and put you in charge of the flunkies and cronies, Jake?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He made me pinky-swear not to let you double up, Jon Boy. I believe he called the inevitability of your trying to do so "an outrage. An Outrage!"
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly is the difference betweena "flunky" (or is it "flunkie"?), "crony" and "lackey"? I know "minion" is the broad term that encompasses them all, but I'm curious as to the specifics for each one.
Maybe this merits a separate thread...
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on topic, I'm really sad this happened. Nobody deserves to die like this, and the guy that did it should be thrown off a bridge.
Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
A large part of this guys Manifesto was copied word for word from the Manifesto of the UnaBomber, Mr. Ted Kacyznski himself.
Whatever the guy's political affiliation, I think should be said that what happened was horrible and should have never happened.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I wouldn't usually call reading a guy's thousand+ page right-wing manifesto, as coming to an "automatic" conclusion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back to look at the proportion of attacks worldwide perpetrated by Islamists. Since the dataset is large, I looked only at 2008 (the last year for which there was data).
In 2008, almost exactly 50% of attacks by named terror groups worldwide were done by what I'd call Islamist groups, although this includes several groups of Muslim separatists who might not have setting up an Islamic state as their primary goal (e.g. some of the more secular Palestinian terrorist groups). Those groups were responsible for about 40% of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks by named terror groups. This is surprising since, as I indicated in my previous post on Europe, Islamic terror groups generally cause greater deaths per attack than other terror groups.
Either way, while it might not be technically true to say that non-Islamic terror is a small minority of all terror incidents, it is true that (at least in 2008) Islamic terror worldwide accounts for significantly more attacks and deaths than any other ideological grouping.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I have no idea what Norwegian prisons are like, and I'm totally against cushy sentences, free Playstations and gym membership for inmates - but I still don't see why high rates of rape and murder in US prisons are so commonly seen as a good thing.
It's not like it has reduced crime.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
I take it, given your views on the propriety of bringing politics into such situations, that you have something more than a selective rendition of Loughner's reading list, or tweets by someone who hadn't seen Loughner in several years to justify the labeling of Loughner as Liberal?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I have no idea what Norwegian prisons are like, and I'm totally against cushy sentences, free Playstations and gym membership for inmates - but I still don't see why high rates of rape and murder in US prisons are so commonly seen as a good thing.
It's not like it has reduced crime.
I've always liked that quote that said something to the effect that the state of a country's prisons says a lot about that country.
I think it's completely wrong that we presume some sort of menace on the part of the prison populace is part of one's sentence.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what is actually wrong with gyms and comfortable living conditions in prison? I think rehabilitating people is probably easier if they aren't living in constant stress and fear.
You have to remember, the average time served for homicide crimes is far lower than you'd assume. Often less than ten years. So you do have to consider how people are going to act when released.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, I'm all for humane treatment and rehabilitation. It's just but if it's all too lovely there won't be much reason (apart from the whole lack of freedom bit - which matters more to some than others) not to want to go there.
There should be some line between all the comforts of home and a living hell.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
This is silly. Nobody 'brought' politics into this, it was already political. It was a politically motivated, premeditated attack by a focused right-winger.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I bet it's difficult to come up with a response quickly without sounding totally dismissive. We've seen quite a few of your pre-baked responses.
^^^ VERY IRONIC RESPONSE ^^^
(psst, we're also not rakeesh's cronies. you're just so easily identifiable as a weak performer that multiple people have independently come to the same correct conclusions about your posting as I have)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Norway's prisons are the epitome of what we might consider "cushy" *AND* their violent crime rate is substantially below ours. Clearly the severity of sentences is not the only factor that affects the level of crime.
We probably should be more focused on what we can do to reduce crime, including recidivism, than on how horrible we can make the consequences of criminal acts. The former is a practical good, the latter is just pointless vindictiveness.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never discuss my feelings on prison because my family is very sensitive on the issue. My aunt was killed by a drunk driver and all of my relatives feel like any torture he faces would be insufficient. For me, all I care about is will he drink and drive again. I don't care how long he serves or if he suffers, provided he doesn't do it again. I have yet to be convinced that fear of prison convinces people not to commit crimes- mostly cause everyone I know who is shady says they will not be caught, if they have even thought that far ahead.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
This is silly. Nobody 'brought' politics into this, it was already political. It was a politically motivated, premeditated attack by a focused right-winger.
No matter the political proclivity of the attacker, what he did was his own decision. His beliefs may have made his sick mind think he was doing the right thing, but they did not force him into action. I don't blame liberalism for all of the eco terrorists out there. Liberalism isn't responsible for The Weather Underground, The Weather Underground is. ALF, ELF, and other "eco-terrorism" groups are on the FBI watch list. If one of those groups carry out an attack, should I quickly place blame on liberal ideals?
So I'm confused Sam, what is silly about what I said?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, does that count as swearing at another poster? Linking straight to a video where a guy aggressively says, "I don't remember asking you a godda@! thing!" and addressing it specifically to another poster? Because hey, lots of people can play that game.
Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder, does that count as swearing at another poster? Linking straight to a video where a guy aggressively says, "I don't remember asking you a godda@! thing!" and addressing it specifically to another poster? Because hey, lots of people can play that game.
Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise.
I haven't addressed you yet. Wait your turn.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The theories some people suggest for putting a positive spin on imprisonment of criminals are really hard to take seriously. Especially when the word "rehabilitation" is bandied about. Maybe it can happen for the juvenile car thief or druggie. But does anyone really expect that this character who planted bombs and shot up dozens of kids is ever going to be "rehabilitated"? Would any sane person want that character ever to be let out of prison, to walk among us again?
The main purpose of prison is to keep dangerous people off the street, to protect the rest of society from any future predations. Providing deterrence and possible opportunity for rehabilitation can at best only be secondary or tertiary purposes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't addressed you yet. Wait your turn.
I was also referring to the whole thread, where your usual style of evasive dishonesty persists, but I'll settle for a direct, relevant response to any of it!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The main purpose of prison is to keep dangerous people off the street, to protect the rest of society from any future predations. Providing deterrence and possible opportunity for rehabilitation can at best only be secondary or tertiary purposes.
Given that some of the most dangerous people in our society (actual, you might encounter them rather than bolt-of-lightning odds against being the victim of a terrorist attack) are people who've been to prison and learned how to be *really* hardened criminals there...there's a case to be made for the idea that 'rehabilitate' and 'protect society' aren't such different goals after all.
It's just that one is straightforward, easy, and makes most people feel good. Scumbag did something awful? Lock 'em up! Everyone can get behind that. 'Scumbag did something awful, but not *so* awful that we can lock 'em up for life, and when they get out it would be prudent that they don't learn how to be even more effective and vicious in the meantime...'
That's a tougher sell.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just had enough. Rakeesh you always complain about how people don't address your points, while in the same breath as those points adding in peevish little asides about how you know they won't address it, name calling, character assaults and general hostility and negativity. Two wrong don't make a right, you can not occupy high ground -and- be a argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastard.
You may think that my not talking to you is just a cop out because my arguments don't have what it takes to answer your points, but since I have decided to not speak to you, I have bitten my tongue again and again while you distort topics with "points" which are utterly and easily put down, because it is your hugely malignant emotional content which I have no interest in being a part of.
You are a part of the problem.
If you want to be a "good guy" try being nice, even when someone is wrong, especially when someone is wrong, because getting up in their face and demanding their surrender while letting them know just how little you think of them is not effective, not productive and not honorable.
You seem to enjoy fighting, arguing and "putting people in their place", and while you can have valid points and bring good perspective to a conversation, as long as you maintain a combative style of posting, seeking out arguments and grinding them into the ground your positive attributes are out weighed by the negative.
I have struggled to control these very same negative styles, which is very much why I don't talk to you, it leads to angry fights which are not constructive or helpful to gaining or sharing understanding.
I'm not saying all this stuff to "score a point off you" or show how much better a person I am than you...I'm asking you to please analyze this problem and help to solve it. If someone is duplicitous or negative, combativly harassing them doesn't actually make them stop or let people know they are full of it (people know), it just makes things worse here and drags you down to their level.
Let's work together to make this a kinder, gentler Hatrack where a-holes are just tiny blips on the radar because no one has to get into a verbal fist fight with them, we simply let them pass by and go back to productive discussion. Please?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have just had enough. Rakeesh you always complain about how people don't address your points, while in the same breath as those points adding in peevish little asides about how you know they won't address it, name calling, character assaults and general hostility and negativity. Two wrong don't make a right, you can not occupy high ground -and- be a argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastard.
posted
Stone_Wolf, if you want to make a kinder, gentler Hatrack, I suggest you start by taking your own advice.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe try not to call people argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastards. That might be a good start.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Samuel L. Jackson also does not remember a single time you've not been laughable in a political debate here, so I guess it's a good thing you outsourced your replies to him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: So I'm confused Sam, what is silly about what I said?
Why do I have to repeat the identification of what's silly about what you said? This event was political on its outset. This was a politically motivated outset. Noting this is quite different than laying the blame fundamentally at the feet of the NDL or other political groups he may have had fairweather political association with. He's a virulently hateful, islamophobic right-winger who was driven to these murderous political acts by his ideology, so it's silly to wish people didn't "bring politics" into something that already had a 99999999% chance of being described and analyzed politically. Especially when he does manage to provide a helpful reminder about the danger and potential inspiration of right-wing nationalism and the blatant islamophobia that it frequently spits out (including our own American conservative party) and how this culture and these fearmongering tactics must be delegitimized.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Jon Boy: I meant it as constructive criticism and not condemnation nor name calling.
How ... how did you honestly believe as you were writing that, that in a million years it could be passed off as "constructive criticism?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was calmer writing the second half...probably should have edited the first half in a calm state of mind...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Jon Boy: I meant it as constructive criticism and not condemnation nor name calling.
Here's some constructive criticism: stop deceiving yourself and take a good, honest look at your own behavior. You keep complaining about everyone else's behavior and how you're being treated, but you seem unable to see your role in it all.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I retract my above rant to be rewritten on the marrow as it is insulting, ineffectual and ultimately hypocritical.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf: You cannot expect me to ask other posters not address you for fear of feeling harassed if you cannot refrain from addressing them and essentially invite them to address you yourself.
edit: Especially in that manner.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm not sure where capax is getting his data...
That was a confusing exchange up there, but it was actually sock_puppet that made that comment.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise. ----------------- I was also referring to the whole thread, where your usual style of evasive dishonesty persists, but I'll settle for a direct, relevant response to any of it!
This thread deserves an agonzing reappraisal of the whole scene. I've made relevant responses before but you seem to ignore the relevant parts of my comments in favor of the angles by which you can express your dislike for me.
There is a reason I didn't acknowledge your gun control comment earlier in the thread. I decided it wasn't worth derailing the thead in order to debate that issue. Once the shock of the incident wears off, the Norway shooting will become the topic of gun control debates because it has direct relevance. But maybe now is not the time.
I'll assume that you called my sarcastic comment insensitive (totally understandable) and leave it at that for the moment because it wouldn't be productive to initiate such a discussion at the moment. The real issue I have is that you bring whatever past discussions we've had into the current debate and that requires me to wade throught the personal nonsense before I get to the relevant part of your comment. I do the same to you, which is why our exchanges go nowhere. I'll apologize for the possible ToS violation of my comment to Samprimary but, really, any time you and your 'cronies' (My apologies again. Like-minded individuals is more appropriate.) direct a comment my way it's usually 'me vs you' and not 'my opinion vs your opinion,' if that makes sense.
I was less defending Beck and more highlighting the dishonest portrayal of high profile figures in the media. I don't know what more to say than what I've already said. We don't agree about A and B, so when we arrive at A=C, there will be understandable friction.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
'Maybe'? Your first remark on the death of scores of kids was to crow about how foolish a particular gun control argument is. Deeply insensitive, and very much a silly argument because no matter where he got his guns in this case, that doesn't change some pretty serious problems with many gun shows. Which was the point I and others made at the time. It was a ridiculous, deeply distasteful statement, characteristic of your political style.
If you had started in this thread differently, it's quite likely you'd have been treated a bit differently. But you didn't.
quote:The real issue I have is that you bring whatever past discussions we've had into the current debate and that requires me to wade throught the personal nonsense before I get to the relevant part of your comment.
My issue with you is exemplified by past discussions and your entry into *this* discussion. You started right in like a hack-crowing about how this suggests gun control claims against gun shows are ridiculous-and you continued it by defending Beck.
Which is what you were doing, by the way. The article didn't say, 'Beck agrees with massacring kids!' it said 'Beck agrees with shooter'. He does, on a given issue, which it went on to clarify. They both think multiculturalism is killing Europe. Breivig thinks that. So does Beck. They agree.
Which is *also* what I said in response to you, despite your claims that it's 'me vs you' rather than challenging your opinions. I've done so at least three times now. There's really nothing *to* disagree about regarding a and b. It's a matter of factual record. They agree. He's on record as espousing an idea, and so is Beck. An unfortunately major media figure who has likened the camp goers to the freaking Hitler Youth (and he's a proven hypocrite on that criticism) also expresses agreement with one of the shooter's ideas, one of the more controversial ones at that.
Should they just...not report on that because it makes him look bad? Hint: he doesn't look bad because of how they reported it. He looks bad for saying the kids were like the Hitler Youth, among other things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
