Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2016 at 11:11 PM in reply to: The Donald Trump, Illegal Alien, Foreigner, Immigrant Bitch and Moan Thread #799009
zk
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=flu].[/quote]
![/quote]
🙂
ParticipantMy two cents on Temecula/any long commute:
Your time (well, mine, anyway – I think most people’s) is vastly more important than the size of the house you live in.
The only time I had a commute longer than about 17 minutes in my 34-year career was when I worked in Ontario. This was the ’80s, and the smog was really bad, and plus I really didn’t like the area. I lived in Canyon Lake, which was about a 45-minute drive. A beautiful ski lake with mostly fresh air. There’s nothing like that anywhere near(er) Ontario, and it was worth the hour extra out of every work day (over the 1/2 hour I’d have spent driving on a 15-minute commute).
Short of a rather drastic improvement in lifestyle such as the above, I can’t see spending hours per day on a long commute. This is your life we’re talking about.
ParticipantIf a person clearly has schizophrenia (the inability to differentiate fantasy from reality), that might be a different story. And that’s why we have the insanity defense. But I’ve seen no evidence that this jackass suffers from that. Only that he’s been a raging asshole his whole life.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=zk][quote=svelte]
Because logical healthy minds do not commit mass murder.That’s why I don’t understand the “competent to stand trial” thing. People who murder multiple people that aren’t holding them captive (or similar) are not mentally competent.[/quote]
What about someone who commits a single murder? Does a logical, healthy mind commit a single murder?[/quote]
I think there are more reasonable situations where a single murder could be committed than multiple murders. It gets into more of a gray area. Perceptions of self defense can come into play as well as other situations. But yeah there can be cases where a single murder is done by a logical healthy mind. There are also cases where it is done with an unhealthy mind. It’s not as clear cut as going out and shooting everyone who happens to be in a particular building at a particular time. That’s always an unhealthy mind.[/quote]
We’re not really defining “deranged” or “healthy mind,” here, which makes it difficult to agree what we’re even talking about. A perfectly healthy mind wouldn’t even slap someone who didn’t deserve it, in my opinion. After that, it’s just degrees. And, if it’s just degrees, why are we punishing someone for wife beating but not someone who commits mass murder?
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=zk][quote=svelte]
The common denominator in these mass murders is, as you rightly point out, a deranged mind.[/quote]
It appears that you assume that a person must be deranged to commit mass murder.
Why do you assume that?[/quote]
Because logical healthy minds do not commit mass murder.
That’s why I don’t understand the “competent to stand trial” thing. People who murder multiple people that aren’t holding them captive (or similar) are not mentally competent.[/quote]
What about someone who commits a single murder? Does a logical, healthy mind commit a single murder?
Participant[quote=svelte]
The common denominator in these mass murders is, as you rightly point out, a deranged mind.[/quote]
It appears that you assume that a person must be deranged to commit mass murder.
Why do you assume that?
Participant[quote=njtosd]
He was just crazy (although that doesn’t make the situation any less tragic). This post makes me think of someone wanting revenge on a wild animal. Why does everyone think these lunatics make rational choices about their fixations? Lots of people are jackasses (sometimes). This, like Newton and Aurora, is the result of a deranged mind.[/quote]
Njtosd, I really like your posts, and I respect your ideas and your intelligence. I anticipate disagreement with at least some of what I write below, but I anticipate that it will be thoughtful and reasoned, and I look forward to it. If any of the below makes it sound like I’m dismissing what you are saying or being condescending, it’s because I can’t quite figure out how to disagree without sounding like that. I merely disagree. And my questions might sound pointy and/or rhetorical, but they’re not meant to be. I’m curious what your answers are.——————————————————
I see your point, but, for the most part, I don’t agree.
First, I would call the scenario I outlined justice rather than vengeance. If I had the capacity to make that scenario happen, and I did it regardless of what the law said, that might be vengeance. If it is my opinion that he deserves it, and that it would be a just punishment, that’s simply my opinion on what would be a just punishment. The fact that I would like it means that I like it when justice is done.
Justice vs. Vengeance is a tricky, nebulous subject that, I think, most people haven’t given much thought. An interesting article on the subject:
As for this case, I’m not all that sure he was deranged. I think he was gay, and like many gay people whose upbringing causes them to hate gays, he hated gays, and he hated himself for being gay.
If you hate somebody so much that you want to kill them, or kill 50 of them, and then you kill them, does that mean that, by definition, you’re deranged? It depends on your definition of deranged, I guess, but I don’t think it does mean you’re deranged. I think it means you’re an asshole.
Maybe he wasn’t a self-loathing gay, maybe he was a religious fanatic. If your religion says you should kill a certain group of people, and you do it, does that mean you’re deranged? Or does it mean you’re a self-righteous asshole? I’m not saying that islam says to kill gays. I’m saying that people interpret their religious texts in all kinds of different ways, and maybe this jackass interpreted islam to say he should kill gays. I’m sure it wouldn’t be the first time somebody interpreted a religion that way, and it definitely wouldn’t be the first time that mass murder was perpetrated in the name of some not-wildly-misinterpreted writings in a religious text.
But even if he was deranged, what he did, it seems to me, requires, in addition to possible derangement, most or all of the following (and probably some others I can’t think of right now): self-righteousness, bad intent, selfishness, self-importance, anger, lack of self control, thoughtlessness, and maybe self-loathing. All of those are just bad personality traits that aren’t necessarily connected to the derangement. If a person is a little bit disconnected from reality, but not a total asshole, it seems to me they’re generally not going to kill anybody. If a person has some weird ideas about life, and he has the bad personality traits above, and he kills a bunch of people, did he do it because he has some weird ideas about life, or because he’s an asshole? Maybe a little of the former and a lot of the latter. Do those weird ideas about life qualify him as deranged and thus not deserving of punishment? In the way that a wild animal is not deserving of punishment? Weird ideas about life run the gamut from believing in astrology all the way up to thinking you should kill all the jews. Both of those ideas, and all the ones in between, involve some detachment from reality. Is a person who believes in astrology deranged? If not, why not? If a person kills people based on a combination of believing in astrology and being a raging asshole, is he deserving of punishment? If so, why does he deserve punishment, but not the guy who kills 50 people because his religion tells him to do it or because he hates himself and all other gays? If not, why not?
Did this jackass beat his wife because he was deranged, or because he was an asshole? Is the punishment for his wife beating different because he’s “deranged?” If you think he deserves punishment for beating his wife, why do you think so? If he beat his wife because he was deranged, why should punishment be in order for beating his wife but not for killing 50 people? If you don’t think he beat his wife because he was deranged, why do you think his wife beating wasn’t the result of derangement but his shooting spree was? Really, other than degree, what’s the difference between beating an innocent, defenseless person and killing 50 of them? Why would one require derangement and the other not? Is there some level of cruelty, evil, badness, or criminality past which derangement by your definition would have to be present?
ParticipantI’d like to think that this jackass is actually not gay (but still extremely homophobic), and he’s in muslim hell, looking up and seeing everybody saying that he’s gay, and he can’t respond. That would be nice.
Participant[quote=mixxalot]I am not anti gay but my issue is that too many gays act like they deserve special treatment and special rights for liking anal sex.[/quote]
If, by special treatment, you mean not being ridiculed, ostracized, spit on, laughed at, turned down for jobs, shunned, mocked, and maybe shot 100 at a time, then they do deserve those things, not as special treatment, but because they’re human.
If that’s not what you mean, what do you mean?
Participant[quote=moneymaker]There are a lot of good candidates out there for VP, but the question is who will he ask and who will accept. Will probably be a political outsider, but who knows. I think it will be a 4 year gig.[/quote]
I think it’s very likely he picks a very much establishment candidate. Someone with lots of experience. His core supporters won’t really care; they’re too excited about Trump being president. But lots of people on the fence might say, “his vice president Senator McSperience will help him understand how things really work in the U.S. government, and will keep him from going too far off the reservation.”
Just my guess.
But, yeah, getting a guy who’s that much of an insider to risk his political career by accepting, that might be tricky.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
Here’s the bright side, we’ve had some crappy presidents before and the checks and balances system we have mostly protects us from them. Your local government has more to do with your life than the federal government so we will be just fine. It’s only four years, it’s but a car payment and i have had some crappy cars and lived to tell the tale.[/quote]Serious question regarding checks and balances, one I really don’t know anything about (even after reading the below link):
What could a really awful president do with executive orders? The bitching about Obama’s executive orders was just partisan b.s. The same with Bush’s. Those two and, as far as I know, all previous presidents have generally had some respect for the process of government. But what if there was a president who had no such respect? A president who considered his or her opinions and desires above the process? How much damage could he do? Any constitutional scholars here?
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/what-are-executive-orders-what-are-their-limits.html
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]ZK, I apologize if some of my musings and even some of my anger looked like they were directed at you, it was not.[/quote]
An apology is totally unnecessary. If it looked like I thought you were angry at me, it’s only because I don’t write “tone” well.
I understand that you think Hillary takes quid pro quo to a whole new level. And you might be right. And I very much dislike that about her as well. I just don’t see that being such a massive factor that Trump, with his myriad gargantuan flaws, would be preferable.
[quote=temeculaguy]
Personality still trumps physical appearance even for a scoundrel like me.[/quote]
Amen, brother.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]
I liked Kasich, Bernie, the Doc (but he occasionally perplexed me with his wackiness, but his middle east refugee plan was so good it made me overlook things). I was okay with Christie, Fiorina and Rubio. But still all of them would get my vote in the end if they faced Hillary or Cruz. …Here’s the reason why, none of it is race or gender. I do not like politicians who are overly religious and I do not like those who are on the take.
[/quote]
You don’t like politicians who are on the take, but you’re ok with Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Rubio and Carson? They all take campaign funds from donors who expect something in return.[quote=temeculaguy]
So here we are, why not Hillary? My guess if it ended up Cruz vs Bernie nobody would accuse me of bias if I supported Bernie, which in that scenario I would. But it irritates me to my very soul that I get attacked because it’s Trump vs. Hillary. That is playing the woman card in the worst sense of card playing.
[/quote]
Are you saying I’m attacking you? I guess that implying that there’s a possibility that you have a subconscious bias by asking you to ask yourself if you do have a subconscious bias could be considered an attack. But I wouldn’t call it that. And I certainly wouldn’t call it “playing the woman card.” You can call it what you want. What it really is, though, is me trying to find out why you (and millions of others) would vote for a dangerous lunatic when you have a flawed but reasonable alternative. I seek this information because I don’t like being baffled. And it truly baffles me that otherwise reasonable people would vote for Trump.[quote=temeculaguy]
I didn’t hear that when I voted for Obama over her (to be honest I think it was a done deal by the time we voted in California but I still never heard it in earlier contests because he is part black). It’s only an issue because Trump is a white guy and that irritates me beyond belief.
[/quote]
It’s only an issue because Trump is a white guy? Where are you getting that from? Obama isn’t a lunatic. Maybe that’s why you didn’t hear it then.[quote=temeculaguy]
The main reason I do not like her is the Clinton foundation and her personal wealth at what I believe is at the expense of the American people.
[/quote]
What don’t you like about her foundation? She takes money from bad people? So do virtually all politicians. At least, with their foundation, she’s not spending it on her campaigns. Does it suck that she takes money from entities who expect something in return? Sure it does. But I don’t think it really differentiates her from other politicians.Why do you think her personal wealth is at the expense of the American people?
[quote=temeculaguy]
10 million from the Saudis and soon after they get an arms sales deal. Money from China, from wall street. I’m okay with it on a certain level but she won’t own it, she chooses to shame others for similar actions. I’m okay with prostitutes, but I’m not okay if they criticize other prostitutes. That’s Hillary.
[/quote]
Don’t all politicians do that? Don’t virtually all democrats shame republicans for taking money from big business, while most republicans shame democrats for taking money from unions and such?
[quote=temeculaguy]Plus she’s a rotten role model for women, one of which I raised. Thankfully the one I raised is a Bernie fan and looks at Hillary like an alien from another planet when she hears the story of Hillary’s marriage.
[/quote]And Trump is a better role model for young men? An ignorant, racist, misogynist bully is a better role model for young men than a woman who stuck by a philanderer is for young women? Why does she have to be a good role model but Trump doesn’t?
Why is her marriage any more of a factor than the marriages of Trump and all the other presidents and presidential candidates? It’s ok to cheat on your wife? It’s ok to dump women when they get too wrinkly and get a smoother model? But it’s not ok to put up with cheating? They’re both bad at marriage. As have been many presidents and candidates. Why is it only important in Hillary’s case?
[quote=temeculaguy]
I wish Bernie hadn’t waited until two days ago to bring up Hillary’s money and the Clinton foundation, then it would be Bernie vs. Trump and we would have some meaningful discussions. Or if it had been Kasich vs. bernie and I could feel everything would be okay. But it’s not, so it’s Trump or its one of the people I dislike the most, male or female and that’s why tomorrow, Trump gets my vote and he will not destroy the world and I’m optimistic that he will improve it. I believe Jack Nicholson said it in a Batman movie, “This town needs an enema.”
[/quote]Sure, the system needs a shakeup. But electing Trump president to shake things up is like inviting a bull to rearrange your china shop. Things will certainly be shaken up, but they won’t be better.
[quote=temeculaguy]
To confuse you more, I am pro abortion, pro moderate gun control (for assault weapons ban, against open carry), pro gay marriage, pro socialized medicine, anti-world police, pro wall at the border, pro better background checks for immigrants from muslim countries, anti sharia law, pro immigration from Mexico, pro deportation of violent or sexual offenders from any country, pro death penalty. I like France’s stance on the Hijab being banned in public schools, you can come here but leave that shit at the door, assimilate or get out. So you cannot put me into a box, I fit no party, I fit no stereotype. I have relatives that are of Arabic and African American decent, including a Muslim relative who I adore. I also think Black Lives Matters does more harm than good for African Americans because they usually defend the very people that prey on their own community. I especially think the anti-trump rioters and protesters are hurting their cause and are being entirely anti free speech. I was also on the other side of the border Saturday giving money to the Haitians, but I still want thorough background checks before they are let in. Charity and sympathy are good, but due diligence is also good. To quote an Arab saying “have trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.”
[/quote]If you think that confuses me, you haven’t been paying attention. While I disagree with some of your positions (particularly the wall: I think it’s impractical), I also disagree with many of the positions of the democrats and the republicans. I don’t fit any mold, and I don’t respect the mind of anybody who does. You’ll notice I’m not asking livinincali these questions. I’m asking you.
I’m not saying Hillary is great. I think she shares Obama’s biggest flaw, which has been an inability to stand up to Wall Street. Also, she’s think-skinned, secretive, and doesn’t really have a vision. I also think she’s brilliant, tough, and has tons of stamina. Add all that up, and I think you’d have a decent president, although she wouldn’t be my first choice. My point being, I understand why Hillary might be below other reasonable candidates on a person’s list. But I don’t understand why people hate her so venomously, and I don’t really understand why anybody reasonable would vote for Trump instead of her.
I think the questions I’ve asked are reasonable, legitimate questions, and I’m very curious to hear your answers. Because I do want to understand.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]My comments/opinion about Hillary are here:
http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary%5B/quote%5D
All of your opinions of Hillary (that I could find) on that thread relate to her relationship with her husband. That’s kind of what I’m talking about.
-
AuthorPosts
