Sacrament shooting

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

She was gullible and unwise. There can be little question about that. Does that make her deserving of ambush and humiliation in front of millions of onlookers? Hardly.

Did I say she deserved it?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

And probably most understand that doesn't do much for a discussion since it tends to distort.

Sarcasm happens a lot on this message board. How come you only get your back up when I engage in it?

But sarcasm is closely related to satire, understatement, hyperbole and other forms of irony. I don't agree that any of these, when recognized for what it is, necessarily distorts. On the contrary, each can convey a clear message.

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Did I say she deserved it?

You seem to be defending -- if not promoting -- her ambusher.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seem to be defending -- if not promoting -- her ambusher.

Nope. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope. 

Pardon. I guess I got the wrong impression when you posted a link with huge graphics to the television program where the woman was ridiculed and her reputation was smeared.

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not condoning Cohen’s actions, but I have a hard time saying she’s some kind of victim. 

Anyone who chooses to present themselves as an authority on a subject and puts themselves out there (as she did when she accepted their offer to pay for her expenses to come be a part of their program) should expect mistreatment, especially on such a controversial subject as gun control.  It would be the same as choosing to be an actor and aiming for high celebrity status, but then being shocked when paparazzi get in your face.

I think I draw the line when it is an invasion of privacy or a physical attack or an outright libel, then one should be labeled a victim.  Getting punked....she continued to participate even when she was uncomfortable with it.  They used unethical means to persuade her, but they never forced her.  Since it was her choice and she was mentally aware of the content from her own description, I don't see her as a victim in the classic sense, I would say she is a victim of her poor judgment as many of us are.

And I think Cohen and his crew are absolute jerks.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 How come you only get your back up when I engage in it?

If that were true, I might feel the need to answer it.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If that were true, I might feel the need to answer it.

I call it as I see it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone who chooses to present themselves as an authority on a subject and puts themselves out there (as she did when she accepted their offer to pay for her expenses to come be a part of their program) should expect mistreatment, especially on such a controversial subject as gun control.  It would be the same as choosing to be an actor and aiming for high celebrity status, but then being shocked when paparazzi get in your face.

I think I draw the line when it is an invasion of privacy or a physical attack or an outright libel, then one should be labeled a victim.  Getting punked....she continued to participate even when she was uncomfortable with it.  They used unethical means to persuade her, but they never forced her.  Since it was her choice and she was mentally aware of the content from her own description, I don't see her as a victim in the classic sense, I would say she is a victim of her poor judgment as many of us are.

And I think Cohen and his crew are absolute jerks.

I agree with you about Cohen and his crew, but this strikes me as victim blaming, not unlike saying that people who are swindled in unwise investment schemes are not in fact victims of the swindler, but rather "of their own poor judgment."

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pardon. I guess I got the wrong impression when you posted a link with huge graphics to the television program where the woman was ridiculed and her reputation was smeared.

FYI - The huge graphics thing is just the way the board handles YouTube clips. If you just copy/paste a link to YouTube the board will automatically embed it and set it to fill the width of the screen. 

I can't stand it, but the only way around it is to put it inside a hyperlink (which is what I tend to do). 

[ttribe]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sarcasm happens a lot on this message board. How come you only get your back up when I engage in it?

 

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I call it as I see it.

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pardon. I guess I got the wrong impression when you posted a link with huge graphics to the television program where the woman was ridiculed and her reputation was smeared.

She wasn’t in that video. I’d never heard of her until you brought her up. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you about Cohen and his crew, but this strikes me as victim blaming, not unlike saying that people who are swindled in unwise investment schemes are not in fact victims of the swindler, but rather "of their own poor judgment."

 

I think placing oneself as an authority puts one in a different category.

Most people who are swindled don't get involved in the scheme because they present themselves as resources of info on investment, someone who has an informed opinion on the public space, etc.

Not saying she deserved it, I have never approved of the "Man On The Street" type of humor. It just doesn't surprise me that self proclaimed authorities get targeted and it seems to me to be part of the package that anyone positioning themselves as such should be prepared for.  Just as politicians shouldn't be shocked when people try to dig up dirt on them, etc.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone who chooses to present themselves as an authority on a subject and puts themselves out there (as she did when she accepted their offer to pay for her expenses to come be a part of their program) should expect mistreatment, especially on such a controversial subject as gun control.  It would be the same as choosing to be an actor and aiming for high celebrity status, but then being shocked when paparazzi get in your face.

I think I draw the line when it is an invasion of privacy or a physical attack or an outright libel, then one should be labeled a victim.  Getting punked....she continued to participate even when she was uncomfortable with it.  They used unethical means to persuade her, but they never forced her.  Since it was her choice and she was mentally aware of the content from her own description, I don't see her as a victim in the classic sense, I would say she is a victim of her poor judgment as many of us are.

And I think Cohen and his crew are absolute jerks.

I agree. If you’re going to run a political organization and advocate publicly, you should know better than this. That doesn’t mean Cohen isn’t a jerk. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think placing oneself as an authority puts one in a different category.

Most people who are swindled don't get involved in the scheme because they present themselves as resources of info on investment, someone who has an informed opinion on the public space, etc.

Not saying she deserved it, I have never approved of the "Man On The Street" type of humor. It just doesn't surprise me that self proclaimed authorities get targeted and it seems to me to be part of the package that anyone positioning themselves as such should be prepared for.  Just as politicians shouldn't be shocked when people try to dig up dirt on them, etc.

I agree she should never have opened herself up to abuse of this sort and that she was unwise to do so.

But those who suggest that victims of sexual assault should have avoided circumstances and situations that left them vulnerable routinely get hammered for saying so. Is there a qualitative difference here?

 

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree she should never have opened herself up to abuse of this sort and that she was unwise to do so.

But those who suggest that victims of sexual assault should have avoided circumstances and situations that left them vulnerable routinely get hammered for saying so. Is there a qualitative difference here?

 I don’t know many people who would call public figures vulnerable. 

Do you feel the same way about people who are duped by James O’Keefe?

Edited July 28, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 I don’t know many people who would call public figures vulnerable. 

Do you feel the same way about people who are duped by James O’Keefe?

Call me out of touch, but I don't know James O'Keefe.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Call me out of touch, but I don't know James O'Keefe.

I’m surprised. He’s pretty big in conservative circles. 

https://www.projectveritas.com/

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But those who suggest that victims of sexual assault should have avoided circumstances and situations that left them vulnerable routinely get hammered for saying so. Is there a qualitative difference here?

 

I don't have the least bit of interest for arguing for positions I don't hold tonight.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm aware of that. The problem, of course, is that an armed person ceases being "law-abiding" the moment he or she snaps and starts shooting. As I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see the logic behind having more people with more guns in more places. 

Some of our local schools have unarmed security officers and some have armed school Resource Officers (law enforcement officers assigned part-time). Some have neither, or the officers stop by once in a while. Which school would you want your children to attend? At which one would a bad person be more likely to commit his atrocity? Would you be willing to pay for a full-time policeman (about $75,000 a year) to be stationed in every school? I would have been willing to take training as an armed teacher and I know many others who would, too. In my lockdown situation, I surprised myself by going into barbarian mode....I looked for anything I could find to disable the guy if he came into my room. A gun would have been much better than the snaredrum stand.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I might add, after our lockdown, a lot of teachers brought baseball bats and golf clubs to put by their desks.....and were told by admin that they couldn’t do that. Most ignored the admin....I put a big hiking staff in my office.

[Calm]

I have a Scottish walking stick that has a nice heft and this perfect knob on the end of it.  Sometimes I keep it in my bedroom when my husband is on trips.  I am not a physical person (even in my dreams I can't hit people or fire guns), so I think I would likely just freeze, but it is comforting to swing it back and forth on occasion.

[Garden Girl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have a Scottish walking stick that has a nice heft and this perfect knob on the end of it.  Sometimes I keep it in my bedroom when my husband is on trips.  I am not a physical person (even in my dreams I can't hit people or fire guns), so I think I would likely just freeze, but it is comforting to swing it back and forth on occasion.

This is the way most women are... but fortunately not me, particularly since I live alone... I have a monitored alarm system that I set every evening, and I have a gun.  When I set my alarm, I think... There, that's done... and I feel secure.  If someone was dumb enough to try and break in with the alarm going off, they'd be in for surprise... bang...bang...   During the day my doors are always locked... if someone intruded, again I'd not hesitate to use my gun... my attitude is that such a person means to harm me or worse, so it's either me or them...  I hope and pray I'm never faced with such a situation.  I don't ever want to have to shoot someone... my safety instructor told us that it's the last thing we want, but if it comes to that to not hold back...

GG

Edited July 29, 2018 by Garden Girl

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I have a Scottish walking stick that has a nice heft and this perfect knob on the end of it.  Sometimes I keep it in my bedroom when my husband is on trips.  I am not a physical person (even in my dreams I can't hit people or fire guns), so I think I would likely just freeze, but it is comforting to swing it back and forth on occasion.

Would that be a shalaylee? Learning from my experience, you might be surprised by what you are capable of doing in a threatening situation. I have no military experience and would not compare a school lockdown with war, but my son Bellicosso is a combat veteran and has talked a little bit about this human reaction to threat.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

On 7/27/2018 at 1:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

A concealed-carry permit entails mandatory training.

Ummm.  Not necessarily.  A Washington state concealed carry permit entails absolutely no training whatsoever.  It only indicates that they ran a background check on you and found nothing to indicate that you were legally unqualified.  And interestingly, not having mandatory training doesn't seem to have caused any trouble.

Oregon requires training.  I've taken it.  It's pathetic.  Again, Oregon CCP holders don't seem to be any more problem than Washington's. 

On 7/27/2018 at 1:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

And I’m not certain a typical perp would know off hand which schools have trained gun owners on staff and which don’t. An expanding number of trained teachers/staff on hand will make the perps less sure of themselves. 

That's the idea.  Create doubt.  I seem to recall that prison interviews indicate that crims prefer to meet armed police than armed civilians in their professional activities.  Likely because the civies are more likely to open fire.