Let's taser eachother over the use of tasers!
blurbees.com
Title: Taser crazy.
Labels: kerfuffles
Blog: http://paula-light.blogspot.com/
Comments: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2827bx
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3524590125410381794&postID=1046549116446177770&isPopup=true
Miss UV has an interesting discussion going on about that student who
dragged to the ground by police and given a jolt of many thousands of
volts for asking questions at a University.
anyway, apparently the lad had spoken for too long (or something) and
had to be brutalised and handcuffed and tasered for doing so.
well sure, i mean, that happens at the dinner table all the time at
your house, doesn't it?
your kid keeps making interesting inquiries during a dinner discussion
and you and the rest of the family tackle him to the ground, cuff him,
and hook up an extention cord to his gonads, right?
so i don't know why anyone sees anything wrong with what the cops did
here.
i tell ya, it's the fricken' downfall of civilization when campuses
become places where ideas and questions can be exchanged between
students and other students, teachers, or speakers.
it's a good thing that they're finally nipping this sort of thing in
the bud.
...
but what's most comforting here is that upon viewing the video Miss UV
was initially shocked by the cop's behavior and wrote an article
condemning it, but after a bit of exposure to spin, she was so easily
led into having no sympathy for the student and is reconsidering her
initial objections.
God Bless America!
please.
...
banterboy
Free Speech -- Use it or Lose it.
http://blurbees.com/2007/09/sotd-0048.html
http://blurbees.com/2007/09/sotd-0048b.html
http://bickerfest.com/subscribe
http://bickerfest.com/members_invite
blurbees.com
> Let's taser eachother over the use of tasers!
>
> Title: Taser crazy.
>
> Labels: kerfuffles
>
> Blog:http://paula-light.blogspot.com/
>
> Comments:http://preview.tinyurl.com/2827bx
>
> of volts for asking questions at a University.
>
> anyway, apparently the lad had spoken for too long (or something) and
> had to be brutalised and handcuffed and tasered for doing so.
>
> well sure, i mean, that happens at the dinner table all the time at
> your house, doesn't it?
>
> your kid keeps making interesting inquiries during a dinner discussion
> and you and the rest of the family tackle him to the ground, cuff him,
> and hook up an extention cord to his gonads, right?
>
> so i don't know why anyone sees anything wrong with what the cops did
> here.
>
> i tell ya, it's the fricken' downfall of civilization when campuses
> become places where ideas and questions can be exchanged between
> students and other students, teachers, or speakers.
>
> it's a good thing that they're finally nipping this sort of thing in
> the bud.
>
> ...
>
> but what's most comforting here is that upon viewing the video Miss UV
> was initially shocked by the cop's behavior and wrote an article
> condemning it, but after a bit of exposure to spin, she was so easily
> led into having no sympathy for the student and is reconsidering her
> initial objections.
oops.
i just reread her reply.
she didn't lose ALL sympathy, just some.
i suppose there's some sort of difference there.
though i'm having trouble figuring out how much sympathy she lost.
was it something like fifty percent?
or more like twenty percent?
perhaps more along the lines of five percent?
i guess everything would have been cool if the cops had used a
slightly lower voltage.
but i'd have to review the free speech "stunt"/voltage charts to be
sure.
Miz UV has a great sense of humor, so hopefully she'll be able to
laugh at herself in this regard and i won't have to "ground" myself
over it (in case she comes storming over with a taser).
> God Bless America!
>
> please.
pretty please?
blurbees.com
> On Sep 19, 11:55 pm, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:16?am, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > > but what's most comforting here is that upon viewing the video Miss UV
> > > was initially shocked by the cop's behavior and wrote an article
> > > condemning it, but after a bit of exposure to spin, she was so easily
> > > led into having no sympathy for the student and is reconsidering her
> > > initial objections.
>
> > oops.
>
> > i just reread her reply.
>
> > she didn't lose ALL sympathy, just some.
>
> appreciate it. :)
no problem.
i've gotten a pretty good feel for how much debate is tolerated on
your blog.
> Second, my initial burst of sympathy was a purely emotional reaction
> same as my later loss of (some of) it.
yikes.
so objecting to unjustified violence is just an emotional thinger?
i see.
> So, there's no logic involved in this aspect of the discussion.
one wonders why not.
> I responded to the idea of a well-meaning, naive guy being
> subjected to an immense amount of physical pain for making
> a poor judgment by feeling really bad for him,
naive? you're the one being naive, FFS.
poor judgement?
whoa.
what was poor about HIS judgement?
the cops were the ones exercising poor judgement.
duh.
not the lad.
he was simply standing up for his rights.
which is highly commendable, not foolish.
> and hoping he'd sue and win his case.
if he did sue, he would win.
assuming he had honest lawyers, that is.
> Later, when I read that he might have been deliberately
> inciting an incident,
he "might have" been deliberately "inciting" an incident?
what kind of "incident" was it that he "might have" been inciting?
> I felt less sorry for him.
that makes absolutely no logical sense, but at least you've been
upfront about that part.
one needs to be meek for you to have compassion for them?
> For an example of one of these articles, see:
>
> http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/09/19/meyer_jerk/
i'll check that out later.
so what was the gist?
"jerk"?
why?
and just how does whatever that article claims change the nature of
what the cops did in going way the fuck over the line in the United
States of fucking America?
> Part of my loss of sympathy was caused by reading about
> a "real" Tasering incident close to home.
IOW: this one was fake?
what, the voltage was just an illusion?
what exactly was "fake" about Meyer's taser "incident"?
the cops were hired actors?
> http://www.ocregister.com/news/deputies-karras-boy-1847777-monday-bro...
>
> I believe that there is a serious issue here of misuse of Tasers by
> law enforcement,
what they did to Meyer wasn't serious?
why not?
> and Andrew Meyer's "prank" is going to dilute any
> potential outrage and turn it into a joke.
i don't see how, but if so, it's only because of total saps like you.
yikes.
so easily led by the nose into dismissing your own rights.
> In fact, it's already a joke.
_everything_ turns into an instant joke.
that's the nature of our society, or haven't you noticed?
> People are printing up "Don't Tase me, bro!" tee shirts,
good.
> and deejays are having a field day with the phrase.
so?
what, you're gonna let the usual assholes change the nature of what
happened with their shameless self-serving spin?
> <>
>
> > Miz UV has a great sense of humor, so hopefully she'll be able to
> > laugh at herself in this regard and i won't have to "ground" myself
> > over it (in case she comes storming over with a taser).
>
> Thanks. I don't have a Taser, but you ought to fear my wicked pink
> spatulas.
scrambled, with a side of italian toast, and a nice big chilled glass
of orange juice, please.
blurbees.com
> On Sep 20, 10:42 am, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > so objecting to unjustified violence is just an emotional thinger?
>
> and should object to unjustifiable violence for reasons other than
> emotion, of course.
well, yeah.
it's just that your original statements seemed to suggest otherwise.
thanks for expanding on that.
i'd imagine that your expansion was due to my cutting to the salient
point of the unjustified violence aspect of the situation.
> I was characterizing how I felt before knowing more about the situation.
this wasn't enough for you?:
http://blurbees.blogspot.com/2007/09/sotd-0058.html
anyway, now that you "know more", you feel that the violence was
justified and that's why you feel less sorry for the dude who was
treated to unjustified violence?
or did the violence somehow become justified because you now believe
him to be a harmless prankster/"media whore"?
media whores deserve to be tasered?
people who seek to draw attention to themselves deserve to be
electrocuted by the cops?
actors, writers, musicians, performance artists, political activists,
athletes, belly dancers, comedians, etc. all deserve to be tasered?
politicians?
oh, wait.
> > naive? you're the one being naive, FFS.
>
> How so? By being openminded to new developments in the story?
by being "opened minded" to the idea that people that are "media
whores" (see partial list above) somehow don't deserve your sympathy
if unjustified violence is used against them.
> > poor judgement?
>
> > whoa.
>
> > what was poor about HIS judgement?
>
> Pulling a prank in order to be a nuisance to the speaker,
what prank? asking questions that challenge the speaker?
questions that cause the audience to either laugh and/or ponder stuff?
"nuisance"? where was the nuisance? what was the nature of the
"nuisance"?
the color of his shirt?
his tone of voice, FFS?
what?
> How so? By being openminded to new developments in the story?
[...]
> Pulling a prank in order to be a nuisance to the speaker, the
> rest of the audience, the police, and the taxpayers is poor judgment.
yikes. you sure are speaking on behalf of quite a few people now.
and whoa, how do the taxpayers enter into that?
taking too long to ask a question rasied their taxes somehow?
and you think he intentionally wanted to annoy _the police_, FFS?
the armed dudes with the sometimes questionable tempers?
you think he _wanted_ to get tasered? that what his whole goal?
why? did he already have the "Don't taser me, Bro" t-shirts printed up
outside in some van?
did he practice getting tasered to avoid soiling his underwear in
public?
> It appears now he had no other goal than
> to draw attention to himself.
i disagree, but anyway...
that somehow lessens your sympathy for him getting 50,000 volts
applied to his hamming-it-up ass for simply wanting to finish asking
his challenging attention-getting questions?
should Cindy Sheehan have been tasered for calling attention to
herself and her son?
should Sally Fields have been tasered at the emmys for saying what she
did that if mothers ruled the world there would be no god-damned wars?
what about meyer's "self" was he trying to "draw attention" to?
some opinions of his about voter suppression?
and for THAT minor issue (or absence of same) he no longer qualifies
for your sympathy when he ends up being dragged to the ground
hancuffed and tasered?
see?
this is why i said YOU were being naive, not him.
you've bought the media spin and have now ignored what you saw with
your own eyes.
> I'd counsel my children not to do such a thing, wouldn't you so
> counsel yours?
my kids counsel themselves on those matters because they've seen what
various assholes resort to when somebody intelligent like myself
righteously mocks them.
but i wouldn't think that they were making "poor judgements" for
standing up to bullies, no.
i'd be proud of them for doing so. i'd consider them very very
brave.
but for their own quality of life, i'm glad that they've instead
chosen NOT to be political or at all controversial.
i'm perfectly happy to stand up to the bullies on their behalf, and i
don't consider myself foolish for doing so.
totally crazy, yes. foolish, no.
> > the cops were the ones exercising poor judgement.
>
> Yes, they were.
i wish i had the discipline to snip my entire response to just that
fact.
because it is the only relevant issue here.
> The two cases of poor judgment are not mutually exclusive.
there were not TWO cases of poor judgement here.
one was brave and righteous and thought-provoking, the other was
cowardly poor judgement.
and never the twain shall meet.
> > he "might have" been deliberately "inciting" an incident?
>
> > what kind of "incident" was it that he "might have" been inciting?
>
> Exactly what he got. He seems rather clever, don't you think?
if true, then he wasn't excercising ANY foolish judgement whatsoever.
see?
if he meant to get unjustifiably tasered for his speech, then he went
about it perfectly.
if he _didn't_ mean to get unjustifiably tasered, then he deserves
your total sympathy.
no more. no less.
either way, you'll have to retract that foolish judgement about him of
YOURS.
unless, of course, you somehow stupidly believe that people
(especially extroverted people) who draw attention to themselves
somehow deserve unjustified violence from the police.
translation: goodbye music, movies, art, church, weddings, peace
activism, etc.
> > one needs to be meek for you to have compassion for them?
>
> Not necessarily. A mischievous little boy might break Grandma's vase
> by accident. I'd feel sorry for him if she yelled at him and made him
> cry. A mean little boy might break Grandma's vase on purpose. I
> wouldn't feel sorry for him if she yelled at him and made him cry.
what if she tasered him for asking Grandma whether Grandpa stole a
vase?
and for shits and giggles, let's just assume that her grandson did so
while snickering.
(but only to attempt to make parallels to the original "incident",
mind you.)
> The issue of whether or not Grandmas should ever yell at their grandsons
> is a separate one.
as is whether Grandma's should eletrify their grandson's gonads for
asking Grandpa uncomfortable (and/or annoying) questions.
> > so what was the gist?
>
> Prank.
so if little Jimmy asked Grandma about Grandpa stealing the vase (and
whoa, that's quite the "prank"), and Grandpa called in his buddies
from the checkers match security detail to tase little Jimmy after
tackling him into the shag rug and cuffing him, your sympathy for
little Jimmy's throbbing gonads would somehow be less than if he
"innocently" asked the question?
> > "jerk"?
>
> > why?
>
> Time-waster. Attention-grabber. Media whore. No noble purpose here.
exposing voter fraud and facism is without noble purpose?
and yikes, one somehow needs to have a "noble purpose" to get your
sympathy for receiving totally unjustified violence?
> > and just how does whatever that article claims change the nature of
> > what the cops did in going way the fuck over the line in the United
> > States of fucking America?
>
> Doesn't.
yet another ideal place that i could have snipped to, had i the
discipline instead of my rascally sense of humor.
> There are two issues.
>
> 1. Meyer, and whether or not to feel sorry for him.
check.
> 2. The cops, and whether or not to condemn them.
mate.
> You can:
>
> A. Feel sorry for Meyer and condemn the cops.
> B. Not feel sorry for Meyer and condemn the cops.
> C. Feel sorry for Meyer and not condemn the cops.
> D. Not feel sorry for Meyer and not condemn the cops.
>
> As it stands now, I choose B.
i choose A.
anybody who is the victim of unjustified violence automatically gets
my sympathy.
YMMV
but i highly doubt it.
blurbees.com
> On Sep 20, 10:09 pm, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > anyway, now that you "know more", you feel that the violence was
> > justified and that's why you feel less sorry for the dude who was
> > treated to unjustified violence?
>
>
> I do not feel that the violence was justified.
>
> I do feel less sorry for the dude now.
and my question is why do you feel less sorry for him now?
specifically.
> Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison. I do not believe that people
> should be murdered in prison. The guards should be held responsible
> for any negligence. Yet, I do not feel sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer. Can
> you grok that?
well sure.
but now you're comparing Meyer to a mass murderer, which is a quite a
few steps up from your last analogy where you compared him to a mean
child intentionally destroying someone else's property, breaking a
vase.
yikes.
so let's back up here so i can get a grip on what you think he did
that was so wrong.
and i'll do that by asking you a very simple question.
do you believe that he should have been _arrested_ for what he "did"?
if so, what was it that he did that warranted anyone even grabbing his
arms, FFS?
just for starters.
i mean, if you had done what he "did", how would you react to two cops
grabbing you by the arms to take you away (for no justifiable reason
whatsoever)?
turning off the microphone was appropriate (though wimpy as hell) if
the organizers of the assembly decided that his question was taking
too much time, but... having him forcibly removed like that?
without even asking him politely to sit down first?
that's totally absurd.
but what followed is absolutely ridiculous.
[...]
blurbees.com
> On Sep 20, 10:09 pm, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <>
[...]
see: http://groups.google.com/group/bickerfest/msg/be86f8438d1476ce
> > or did the violence somehow become justified because you now believe
> > him to be a harmless prankster/"media whore"?
>
> The violence was not justified.
ok.
so you're saying that the violence was not justified but, you don't
feel sorry that he received it, just like you wouldn't feel sorry if a
mass murderer received violence in jail.
Meyer was somehow deserving of the unjustified violence?
because he was, in your opinion, doing a prank for no noble reason?
> > media whores deserve to be tasered?
>
> The Tasering was inappropriate. I condemn the cops for reacting the
> way they did. How many times do I need to state this?
only once.
but the analogies that you've used seem to show a great hostility
towards Meyers.
one in which you don't feel sorry for him having been violently
tasered.
that's the extremely puzzling part.
> > people who seek to draw attention to themselves deserve to be
> > electrocuted by the cops?
>
> Nope.
then what was it that he did for which you feel less sorry for him
now?
> > actors, writers, musicians, performance artists, political activists,
> > athletes, belly dancers, comedians, etc. all deserve to be tasered?
>
> Where do you get this stuff from?
how is Meyers any different from those other people who draw attention
to themselves?
why do you feel that what he "did" (whatever the hell that could be)
is somehow more deserving of a jolt of electricity than a comedian?
> Tasering should be an extremely rare event, assuming it is ever even
> justified. Certainly it should not be used on someone who is already
> down with six cops surrounding him. That's insane.
should he have been arrested in the first place? if so, why?
> There was an incident here with a crazy girl, high on drugs, who
> stabbed her mother and then was running around in a public park with a
> knife. The cops arrived and shot her. Dead. They said she "lunged" at
> them. Maybe so. But there is an example of when Tasering *might* have
> been appropriate. If the choice is between shooting someone because
> they are an imminent threat, or disabling them via Taser, then maybe
> Tasering is okay.
>
> It was definitely *not* okay in the Meyer case.
but you don't feel sorry for him that he _was_ tasered.
why not?
> <>
>
> > and whoa, how do the taxpayers enter into that?
>
> Are you kidding? The cops are now on leave with a departmental
> investigation going on. Who do you think pays for that?
that's Meyer's fault?
yikes.
holy shit.
recap:
"It was definitely *not* okay in the Meyer case."
-- You
(a few lines above)
yet you blamed him for costing the taxpayers.
whoa.
[...]
blurbees.com
> On Sep 21, 10:28 am, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 10:09 pm, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <>
>
> > > > anyway, now that you "know more", you feel that the violence was
> > > > justified and that's why you feel less sorry for the dude who was
> > > > treated to unjustified violence?
>
> > > Two separate issues.
>
> > > I do not feel that the violence was justified.
>
> > > I do feel less sorry for the dude now.
>
> > and my question is why do you feel less sorry for him now?
>
> > specifically.
>
> > > Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison. I do not believe that people
> > > should be murdered in prison. The guards should be held responsible
> > > for any negligence. Yet, I do not feel sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer. Can
> > > you grok that?
>
> > well sure.
>
> > few steps up from your last analogy where you compared him to a mean
> > child intentionally destroying someone else's property, breaking a
> > vase.
>
well, yes, you are.
just like i compared him to a kid having a conversation at the dinner
table and the family absurdly tackling him to the ground and attaching
an extention cord to his gonads simply for something he was saying
during the discussion.
simialrly, i changed your property-brwaking analogy to one which was
more equivalent to what actually occured.
see, my analogies attempt to get at the actual issues involved instead
of clouding them all up with derogatory spin meant to make it seem as
though Meyer did something more than he did, like destroying property
or mass murder, for instance.
> just trying to set up various examples of where a
> person might condemn an action against a perpetrator while not feeling
> sorry for the perpetrator.
oh, i understand your intent quite well.
it's your inflamatory spin that i'm trying to cut through.
i'm trying to figure out just why it is that you feel less sorry for
Meyer who was victimized by violence.
you can't seem to express it very clearly.
> Either I am not doing a good job in getting
> that point across, or for whatever reason you're failing (or
> pretending to fail) to understand it in Meyer's case.
because your analogies simply do not apply to the Meyer's case.
cluetime.
try making one that does.
while explaining specifically why you don't feel sorry for him
anymore.
> > yikes.
>
> > so let's back up here so i can get a grip on what you think he did
> > that was so wrong.
>
> > and i'll do that by asking you a very simple question.
>
> > do you believe that he should have been _arrested_ for what he "did"?
>
> From what I saw and read, no.
but you don't feel sympathy for him getting arrested regardless?
> > if so, what was it that he did that warranted anyone even grabbing his
> > arms, FFS?
>
> > just for starters.
>
> > i mean, if you had done what he "did", how would you react to two cops
> > grabbing you by the arms to take you away (for no justifiable reason
> > whatsoever)?
>
> > turning off the microphone was appropriate (though wimpy as hell) if
> > the organizers of the assembly decided that his question was taking
> > too much time, but... having him forcibly removed like that?
>
> Turning off the mike would have been an appropriate reaction against
> someone who was perceived as unfairly hogging the mike.
even Kerry didn't appear to have that perception.
and from what i've seen, it doesn't seem to me that he was hogging the
mike at all.
> > without even asking him politely to sit down first?
>
> > that's totally absurd.
>
> > but what followed is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> Agreed!
blurbees.com
> On Sep 21, 11:04 am, "blurbees.com" <blurb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > see, my analogies attempt to get at the actual issues involved instead
> > of clouding them all up with derogatory spin meant to make it seem as
> > though Meyer did something more than he did, like destroying property
> > or mass murder, for instance.
>
> wrongly.
given your lowered sympathy for the victim of their violence, that's
highly debatable.
unless you simply mean the cops acted "illegally" instead of
"wrongly".
> You just seem not to understand how I can agree with you on
> that yet no longer feel as much sympathy for Meyer after I found out
> he was pulling a prank rather than asking questions he actually cared
> about.
yes.
and again, i ask you, what was the nature of this "prank" that he
supposedly was pulling?
that's where you've totally lost me.
...
because firstly, i didn't see any "prank" being pulled.
secondly, even if he was pulling some sort of prank, that wouldn't
make me feel one iota less sympathy for him getting 50,000 volts
applied to his body by law-breaking cops (unless his "prank" was
somehow wrongfully harmful to someone).
thirdly, have you ever pulled a prank of some sort?
based on your sense of homur and your excellent parody skills,
methinks you probably have.
so, if someone tasered you for "pulling a prank", which of your many
pranks should i feel less sorry for you about?
if you could come up with some sort of analogy which is transferable
to the Meyer's incident, you will have completed your writerly duties
in this debate.
if not, well... you'll continue to receive my probing questions about
why you're totally speechless on the matter.
> That is what *my* analogies were attempting to get you to see.
i've seen exactly what your analogies have been avoiding since your
very first mention of them.
what i _haven't_ seen is you describe the nature of "the prank" which
somehow lowered your sympathy for someone who was zapped with 50,000
volts because of said "prank".
> The issue in play was whether or not a person should feel as sorry for
> a prankster as someone sincere.
well, no. the issue had nothing to mdo with his sincerity. it had to
do with why you felt he no longer deserved your sympathy for something
he said or did at that assembly.
or are you saying that anyone who uses sarcasm to make a point, for
instance, is not worthy of your sympathy if said person gets tasered
for doing so?
not that i'm saying Meyer was GUILTY of using sarcasm, i have no idea
about whether he was sincere about his question or not, it simply
wouldn't matter to me even one scintilla either way.
as someone who often employs sarcasm yourself, i'd think you'd be MORE
sympathetic to an "insincere" speaker for getting tackled and zapped
by twenty cops than your average person.
yikes.
recap:
> The issue in play was whether or not a person should feel as sorry for
> a prankster as someone sincere.
IMO, sincere or insincere, someone's question should not be treated
with violence, and i would feel just as much sympathy for them whether
it was an insincere question or not.
unless the question was so extremely hateful or dangerous in nature
that it somehow harmed somebody.
i've seen nothing in his question nor his manner of asking same that
reduces my sympathy for him in any way.
my question to you is, what exactly was it about his alleged "prank"
that has you abandoning your initial sympathy for him?
IOW, what exactly WAS his "prank (and what was so bad about it that
changed your mind about him deserving your sympathy)?
> My vase-break example illustrated that for you,
you equate his questions with destroying property?
> but you jumped right back to the Tasering, which we are *not*
> disagreeing about.
well, no. i "jumped back" to the point of the discussion which
revolves around someone's speech being severely punished, not
someone's intentional destroying of property nor someone's mass
murdering escapades.
> So I tried the other example to illustrate how you
> can condemn a crime but not feel bad for a victim,
yikes.
yes, but why?
you haven't said that yet.
are you really prepared to rest your explanation on the fact that he
used sarcasm or somesuch?
whoa.
> and yet you are *still* saying you don't get how it applies to Meyer.
because you haven't given a single example that would demonstrate an
equivalent victimization of violence as it pertains to the Meyer's
case.
instead your analogies have been about destroying property and mass
murder.
see?
> I'll have to do a "whatevs" now.
ok. evs, dude.
> > i'm trying to figure out just why it is that you feel less sorry for
> > Meyer who was victimized by violence.
>
> > you can't seem to express it very clearly.
>
> I believe I've said several times that I feel less sorry for him
> because he was deliberately provoking an incident.
try describing "the incident" that he was "deliberately provoking".
what was he trying to provoke?
an answer to his question?
a sweating Kerry?
what?
and what is your evidence of this astoundingly unsympathetic and
utterly mysterious "provocation" of his.
something you read on some blog, FFS?
for instance, what in the video of "the INCIDENT" points to some sort
of "prank" that somehow lessens your sympathy for him?
> I don't know how much clearer I need to be.
try making an analogy which even remotely fits the circumstance in
question.
that shouldn't be too hard.
i've already reconfigured one of your analogies in that way regarding
the vase.
i changed the issue from meanly destroying property to asking Grandma
an uncomfortable question.
> Perhaps the issue is that you just can't
> accept that I feel this way.
sorta, yeah. because you're not making any sense whatsoever.
not even emotional sense.
which is why i think you're having so much trouble making an analogy
that even remotely fits the case.
> I'm not going to be able to give you a
> mathematical formula regarding my feelings.
no need for any math whatsoever.
just make a simple analogy that fits the dynamics of the case.
> So, do you feel the exact same amount of sympathy for Andrew Meyer as
> you (presumably) did for Rodney King? Why or why not?
no. Rodney was beaten senseless. he deserves wayyy more sympathy.
but Rodney actually did something that could be remotely considered
wrong, IIRC.
he put people in serious danger with his driving, at the very least,
IINM.
but since no one was hurt, and he was arrested, the cops had
absolutely no right to pound on him mercilessly for doing any of that.
> <>
>
> > > Turning off the mike would have been an appropriate reaction against
> > > someone who was perceived as unfairly hogging the mike.
>
> > even Kerry didn't appear to have that perception.
>
> If the cops perceived him as unfairly hogging the mike, then turning
> it off would have been an appropriate reaction.
um, the cops shouldn't be making ANY of those decisions at a
University, FFS.
unless they are the ones who organized the speakers and topics because
they were making some sort of cop presentation and so are running the
student assembly.
> You know, B, this is as clear as I'm capable of being.
i sure as hell hope not.
> I don't usually have trouble getting most intelligent people to
> understand what I'm saying,
but you're not saying anything here, you're spinning, bobbing, and
weaving.
there's a big difference.
> so either I'm having a bad day or else you're being stubborn.
or both.
however, my stubbornness is not a bad thing here.
because you can't seem to express yourself clearly in this matter.
perhaps that's due to you're not knowing what the hell you're even
thinking anymore.
THAT makes much more sense than any of your non-related analogies and
whatnot.
> Forgive me if I'd rather an unbiased third party judge that one. :)
heh.
well, let's have them.
but this is way simpler [1] than whether or not:
2 + 2 = 5
if 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
and 3 + 3 = 5
because this Meyer's thinger is a clear case of you not being able to
make your point about exactly what it is that lessens your sympathy
for the violence that Meyer's was given for his speech.
you cannot possibly believe it to be just because you believe that his
question was insincere, can you?
because, whoa, if so, man, are you ever inconsistent.
...
[1] though, logically speaking, that is about as simple as it gets,
assuming you understand the nature of odd and even numbers.