On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM, denstar wrote: >> >> Don't make me provide a link to a definition. > > Do it. Check the synonyms.
Are those the things in a thesaurus? I wonder why we need so many words for the "same" thing? Why not just use a single definition, and save space at least? And why does incite have so many more synonyms? Mysteries upon mysteries! ... >> Thanks for setting me straight there, I almost thought real people >> could be held accountable for stuff. Nice and comfy to be back to >> blaming the MSM. > > Even they admitted they were wrong, when will you. When I think I'm wrong. It *does* happen, I swear. I make mistakes. And I don't mind being accountable. >> I didn't even claim they incited it. I did claim that there's the >> potential for inciting violence. > > I don't agree. I think you try too hard to twist words to work in your favor. Hmm. I do love words. And nuance. I use the wrong ones sometimes tho. >> If there wasn't, we wouldn't even be discussing this. There would be >> no "story". > > We shouldn't be, but you took the bait. You should be cautious next > time before you jump. You and I were debating this long before now. Remember our talks about the Republicans and the Tea Party? We touched on this very issue. For the last time (really!), *I'm* the stoner with the memory problems. >> Come on man. I'm just saying that politicians on *both* sides >> probably shouldn't use armed revolt as a "metaphor" for voting. > > So targeting a seat is now forbidden? Where do we draw the line on > what words are allowed. Since we have no sign that it caused anyone to > shoot anyone why sweat it? Don't get all PC on us. You portend to be someone who likes the freedom of speech, yet are *constantly* accusing me of wanting to "forbid" this, or "revoke" that. Were do you get "allow" and "silence" and whatnot from what I write? Are my mild words that thunderous in your ears? I'm touched. =) >> Water the tree of liberty indeed. Obviously, there are nutters out >> there. Maybe even impressionable nutters. Or even people who take >> things a bit too literally. > > That's an excuse to attack. You imagine these people sitting on the > edge waiting for Palin or Limbaugh to give them the word or a sign > that it's time to snap. You imagine this so you can attack ideas you > don't agree with. Snap out of it man, have more faith in people. The > nutters are fewer than you think and words won't set them off. I really don't know the minds of men. I have had the fortune of experiencing a bit of the mental health side of society, which was interesting, and perhaps shed some light on some things, and yet, all I can do is guess. And perhaps relay anecdotal-alities. Anyways, I'm a firm believer in (supporter of?) the 2nd amendment, which is why seeing it abused thusly saddens me, and I feel, cheapens it. It's like some big corporation buying this nifty underground thing, and then proceeding to wreck it by twisting it to their way, instead of embracing it's way. Which probably sounds silly, but whatever. The Tea Party, and the Republican Party, seem to cheapen what should be noble things. Sorta like Moore putting spin on things that really didn't need spin (and in effect, lessening their impact), on the Left. ... >> If we *really* had free speech, I could yell "Fire!" in a crowded >> theater (when there is, in fact, no fire) without fear. > > So you're saying the term lock and load has the same effect? It is a > said state you think we're in. That's not really what I was saying, but yes, I think our political and in some respects our societal state is far less than optimal. And even less than "normal", even... though some people say it's always been this way. And this too shall pass. =) ... >> Um, "is man an island" is a pretty global question. Kinda all-encompassing. > > This guy hasn't watched tv in years, doesn't follow politics, has > little contact with people ... he's a nutter living in his own island. > That's just one person not mankind. Ah! I see what you were getting at now. Ok, that makes a bit more sense. Sadly, in this case, we share his island. >> Either you think people effect people, even with mere words, or you >> don't. You seem to have a very refined sense of responsibility, so, >> where does it end? > > It's actually not so black and white. Some people effect some people. > Some people have greater influence than others and on and on. You want > to get philosophical and go all butterfly effect on me. We're necessarily in the land of philosophy here. Culpability. Responsibility. Yes, ilities. ... >> I think it's a bit muddier than that, to the point which, perhaps, >> each of us is responsible for the rest, in some way shape or form. > > Someone might have had an impact on him somewhere along the line. > Hell, the Senator had a bad effect on him. Relativity is an interesting beast. Is .001% responsible still considered responsible? And what about the future? What if, through some sort of self-fulfilling prophesy, this chain of events culminates in something horrendous, that can directly be traced back to, say, things Palin said? Had Palin never said the things she said, the Senator wouldn't have commented on the things said, and perhaps wouldn't have been at that grocery store. Instead she would have been at a home depot when crazy guy decided to get violent, and he wouldn't have gotten off a shot because some employee noticed him acting funky, and had a 18.v chainsaw trained on him from the get-go. I guess what I'm no about is that Palin is responsible for what she says, and she says some stupid shit, much as I did right there. Only not as cool as what I said. ... > What are you trying to say, someone heard lock and load and wanted to > kill someone? Someone said "lock and load", etc. (meaning vote). Someone said "2nd amendment remedy" (meaning vote(?)). These are our representatives? Or would-be representatives? I think that's pretty lame. Violence and politics don't mix well. That is what I'm saying. >> "Taking back" and "Change" are both forms of change. One has no >> connotations besides "change" though. Wanna guess which one? > > If you change directions and realize you're going the wrong way you > correct. So yes you change again, not necessarily back to the way it > was, but a different direction. Guess it beats "A different kind of change" as a slogan. =) >>> I should have said we're on the precipice. :) >> It kinda seems like as soon as we get a Democrat in office, we start >> backing away from the precipice. > > Are you sure you know what side of the cliff we're on? I LOLed at this. :) Just don't look down, neh? >> I'm sure Republicans can do it too, I just haven't seen it in my lifetime. >> =)p > > Really? Reagan, Bush and Bush? Nothing? I think Clinton was the only one to balance the budget, however nefariously he managed it. I don't recall Reagan, Bush or Bush getting us going like gang-busters economically. >>> It's the economy man. >> The economy has been getting better and better since we put a Dem in >> office. History repeating itself, no? > > Um, you still living in the US? > Highest unemployment, foreclosure rate, dollar is worthless, many > states are teetering on insolvency. Hey, I thought I was the doom and gloom guy this time! Who got us into this mess? Obama? The Dems? Surly no Republicans had a hand in any of it. 100% sure Gramm, who has been both a dem and a r'pub, had almost nothing to do with any of it. Yadda yadda. We're fine. We'll be fine with violent rhetoric too. Sheesh. Everything is so epic with you! =) >> I was pointing out the link between "assassination attempt on a >> politician" and "violent rhetoric" (and perhaps "polarization"). > > Did you find one? Lots. They start with <a href. Even if it's just in our heads at the moment, it still exists. It's a possible, and to varying degrees, probable, outcome. But who cares, right? Makes life exciting! We get to have debates about how much effect words affect! >> Again, if there was no link, there would be no story. And as much as >> you profess that "there is no story!"... well, that's just crazy. > > They can make a story out of anything they want, remember Dan Rather? > How about Trigs mom? Dan Rather is a bad ass mammer jammer. And he had the balls to man up. Unlike, say, our President and several others. Don't remember Trigs mom. Something about Autism? Forced marriage? I know Trig is related to Palin... right? Son, or daughter's son maybe? >> Again: it does not matter one whit *what* the nutters real motivation >> was. There's a story there, because of violent rhetoric. > > It's a different story for another time. I hear ya. Nothing happened. We should be focusing on like, giving kids mental health assessments. So politicians have begun using one of our checks on power to gain power. What's new? >> Even lies have some relation to truth, by definition. It's the truth >> that I seek. And I don't see the answer in the MSM. I see it in >> "us". > > I don't think you want the real truth unless it fits your mold. I didn't know they made truth that fits 10 inch Bundt molds. >> I'm pretty sure "us", or "the nation" is responsible for the media. > > I wish they would take responsibility for the bs they try to pass as news. The only real news left is on PBS, and the rest is entertainment. Sadly, the "conservatives" love to go after PBS. Trying to fix the budget, I guess. >> I literally asked if you thought that man was an island. > > And I think he is. Just him, not everyone. Roger. I don't think it can work that way though, even if we want it to. Butterfly effect and all that. >> But forget that. As I stated earlier, even if Palin had said "Shoot >> her!", Palin would not be The One Responsible. > > Then I would have a problem with her comments. So what if she'd said "Toot her!", and it just /sounded/ like... >> A better question for you is, I guess, had she said "Shoot her!", >> would Palin be even in part responsible? Or would that be "blame" >> where no blame was due? How responsible are people for their words? >> None? They don't count as actions maybe? > > Hypotheticals? If she said shoot and someone shot she'd be guilty. > She's already guilty in the MSM and didn't say shoot/ She wouldn't be guilty of the crime of shooting. Probably guilty of some other crime, and I know legally sometimes it can be the same as pulling the trigger yourself, but... She is guilty of using violent rhetoric. Which isn't a crime- but that doesn't make her not guilty. I'm guilty of prolonging another super long thread that's basically related to politics. Perhaps not a crime, but not as cool as being guilty of being totes awesome. >>> Just vote, it's easier. >> Sounds like a metaphor for "Bring guns" to me. > > I know it does. I know you know it does. And that even though you typed it with a straight face, you were laughing maniacally inside. :Den -- >> Free will is an illusion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:333462 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
