Post: #11

The answer is easy. Compulsory insurance for gun ownership like there is for cars. Unpopular idea I know, but let the free market regulate what the government can't.

Also, a health industry that isn't so bent on making money for fixing symptoms that they bury research that finds cures.

Don't derail this idea by saying "insurance won't stop lone wolf shooters". Think about it for a bit. Let it stew. It will start to make a lot of sense.

And yes, huge sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in this terrible event.

Post: #12

Just my opinion but something seems off with these school shootings.

One thing for sure is that all of these people are on prescription drugs. This is the root of the evil.

Second thing for sure is that regardless if they are truly happening is that it's being used by the media for a political agenda. Politics. Another root of evil.

Third. I agree with the not advertising these shootings. In a broken mind who's lost and looking for a little recognition glorifying these events seems to give the poor lost soul a way to be recognized and forever famous. It's sad so sad that these broken ones are turned into cash cows by the big pharma versus getting the help they really need.

Forth: if these are happening than it's sad for all parties involved. The victims and the families as well as the families and the perpetrators.

Post: #13

(05-19-2018 2:56 PM)theLaw Wrote:  Full disclosure: I'm a free-speech absolutist, and only draw the line at violence or the threat of violence. For instance, I think that the NYT should be able to call Tom Hanks a pedophile with zero evidence. Short-term, this might be very uncomfortable, but long-term the public will vote with their dollars and get the media they deserve. Anything short of this risks shutting down speech that other's might find offensive, which is precisely what free-speech is there to protect.

Personally, I agree with you, but I also want the freedom to publish any info that I like without the government stepping in to censor it, because they have yet to earn my trust. Remember, this government that you want to give more power to is the same government that refuses to release info about the Las Vegas shooting, completely bungled the Parkland shooting costing kids their lives, and wants us all to believe that the "Russians hacked the election" (they literally use a nonsensical phrase as their talking point). I just can't agree with handing over power to such an incompetent bureaucracy.

The NYT does have the ability to call Tom Hanks a pedophile with zero vidence, but should they choose to do so Tom Hanks also has the right to sue the living shit out of them for slander and defamation of Character.

The difference between that scenario and one involving a School shooter is that in your example it was one news outlet defaming one person, whereas in a School shooting every media outlet jumps on the bandwagon.

As to trusting the government, I have little trust in the government myself. In the narrative of the Russians hacking the election, I'm blown away to this day that even after discovering who paid Christopher Steele to create the now wildly discredited Dossier and after digging around for over a year and finding nothing, that Robert Mueller is STILL trying to find something to hang Trump on, yet Hillary walks free.

Then there's the now undisputed fact that Obama and Eric Holder's FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign team early on in the election cycle. That makes Watergate look like child's play, yet the news media won't even report on it.

(05-19-2018 4:23 PM)metaltree Wrote:  Unfortunately in a free society there is nothing that can be done. First of all a functioning democracy requires absolute free speech. As free speech erodes so does the quality of the democracy. Secondly holding individuals or groups responsible for indirect causation of horrific occurrences also won’t work in a functional democracy because indirect cause and effect is too subjective. Objectively is required to administer justice.

The absolute right of free speech in America no longer exists, when a baker can be fined by the State for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, when one can get arrested for making factual statements about a cult/religion, when Schools and Universities can publish lists of words that are not to be used, when speaking engagements can be cancelled or denied because the ruling bodies didn't agree with the Speakers viewpoint, when colleges can create safe spaces and delegate who can access them and what can be said, and when protesters can violently disrupt Rallies because they don't agree with what the Rally stands for, the Right to Free Speech begins to dissolve and becomes entwined with who the bigger bully is and what is Politically Correct.

(05-19-2018 8:18 PM)WiggleWasser Wrote:  That legislation would require a repeal of the 1st amendment.

Incorrect! That was of initial concern to me, but show me where in the 1st Amendment news media is guaranteed access to ANY information. The Right to Free Speech does not and never has included the right to information access.

Setting aside access to information and assuming that the news media was able to get their hands on information they want to report, there are still restraints placed on releasing classified information or that which would jeopardize national security.

Post: #14

(05-20-2018 7:41 AM)mark-in-dallas Wrote:  The NYT does have the ability to call Tom Hanks a pedophile with zero vidence, but should they choose to do so Tom Hanks also has the right to sue the living shit out of them for slander and defamation of Character.

The difference between that scenario and one involving a School shooter is that in your example it was one news outlet defaming one person, whereas in a School shooting every media outlet jumps on the bandwagon.

As to trusting the government, I have little trust in the government myself. In the narrative of the Russians hacking the election, I'm blown away to this day that even after discovering who paid Christopher Steele to create the now wildly discredited Dossier and after digging around for over a year and finding nothing, that Robert Mueller is STILL trying to find something to hang Trump on, yet Hillary walks free.

Then there's the now undisputed fact that Obama and Eric Holder's FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign team early on in the election cycle. That makes Watergate look like child's play, yet the news media won't even report on it.

(05-19-2018 4:23 PM)metaltree Wrote:  Unfortunately in a free society there is nothing that can be done. First of all a functioning democracy requires absolute free speech. As free speech erodes so does the quality of the democracy. Secondly holding individuals or groups responsible for indirect causation of horrific occurrences also won’t work in a functional democracy because indirect cause and effect is too subjective. Objectively is required to administer justice.

The absolute right of free speech in America no longer exists, when a baker can be fined by the State for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, when one can get arrested for making factual statements about a cult/religion, when Schools and Universities can publish lists of words that are not to be used, when speaking engagements can be cancelled or denied because the ruling bodies didn't agree with the Speakers viewpoint, when colleges can create safe spaces and delegate who can access them and what can be said, and when protesters can violently disrupt Rallies because they don't agree with what the Rally stands for, the Right to Free Speech begins to dissolve and becomes entwined with who the bigger bully is and what is Politically Correct.

(05-19-2018 8:18 PM)WiggleWasser Wrote:  That legislation would require a repeal of the 1st amendment.

Incorrect! That was of initial concern to me, but show me where in the 1st Amendment news media is guaranteed access to ANY information. The Right to Free Speech does not and never has included the right to information access.

Setting aside access to information and assuming that the news media was able to get their hands on information they want to report, there are still restraints placed on releasing classified information or that which would jeopardize national security.

@mark-in-dallas, I'll try to phrase this respectfully because I'm aware this is your forum and you're kindly allowing us to comment here.

Progress. As a society we move forwards. We cast aside old prejudices as new information becomes available. If we don't continually strive for improvement we stagnate and then we die. We climbed down from the trees and moved out of the caves for a reason.

As an Australian and an outside observer of the trainwreck that is American politics it is obvious that you've been seduced by one side of the narrative to the point that you blindly dismiss anything that contradicts this narrative and unquestioningly embrace anything that reinforces it. This is not an attack on you personally, I see this behaviour in every politically active American I interact with, from both sides of the spectrum.

But the ability to see things from someone else's point of view is a strength, not a weakness. Compassion is a strength, not a weakness. Having the courage and strength to walk the walk as your own true self in a hostile society, that makes you a hero in my book.

Post: #15

When people tell you who they are, they're simply repeating the same story they tell themselves.

It's what they do that makes them who they are.

Religious freedom? You have it already, you are free to practice your religion. But the state comes first. Country first, god second. It really is that easy.

Post: #16

(05-20-2018 8:22 AM)Henry_the_turnip Wrote:  @mark-in-dallas, I'll try to phrase this respectfully because I'm aware this is your forum and you're kindly allowing us to comment here.

Progress. As a society we move forwards. We cast aside old prejudices as new information becomes available. If we don't continually strive for improvement we stagnate and then we die. We climbed down from the trees and moved out of the caves for a reason.

As an Australian and an outside observer of the trainwreck that is American politics it is obvious that you've been seduced by one side of the narrative to the point that you blindly dismiss anything that contradicts this narrative and unquestioningly embrace anything that reinforces it. This is not an attack on you personally, I see this behaviour in every politically active American I interact with, from both sides of the spectrum.

You know what, I saw where your political views were with the snide remark you made about the Trump Administration in THIS POST, and I said nothing. But, you will not lecture me about progress and accuse me of being the one blindly seduced and dismissive of anything that contradicts my beliefs, all while spewing your liberal bullshit talking points!!!

As to your remarks about the trainwreck that is American Politics, insinuations and then saying that it isn't an attack on me personally. I'll bite my tongue not tell you what you can do with your holier than thou attitude.

(05-20-2018 8:28 AM)Henry_the_turnip Wrote:  Religious freedom? You have it already, you are free to practice your religion. But the state comes first. Country first, god second. It really is that easy.

That pretty well says it all and sums up your political leanings in one sentence: You are free to practice as you choose, as long as the State agrees with the choice you make! And I guess that I can assume your non capitalization of the word God is a good indicator of where your religious beliefs lie.

Post: #17

(05-20-2018 8:28 AM)Henry_the_turnip Wrote:  But the state comes first. Country first, god second. It really is that easy.

Strange statement coming from a guy who claims to be so open-minded, but then again, this is what projecting is all about right?

Also, you're insurance idea was a dead-giveaway. Next time, show a bit of restraint, and reel people into your game slowly.

Post: #18

(05-20-2018 7:41 AM)mark-in-dallas Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 8:18 PM)WiggleWasser Wrote:  That legislation would require a repeal of the 1st amendment.

Incorrect! That was of initial concern to me, but show me where in the 1st Amendment news media is guaranteed access to ANY information. The Right to Free Speech does not and never has included the right to information access.

Setting aside access to information and assuming that the news media was able to get their hands on information they want to report, there are still restraints placed on releasing classified information or that which would jeopardize national security.

No sir, I am not incorrect. Your original assertion was for legislation to prevent the media from releasing names of school shooters. That is what I replied to and my position is the correct one.

Post: #19

I stand by every word Mark and theLaw posted on this thread.

I'll just add that the common denominator of these kids is the absence of the father.Most of them are fatherless, though in the recent situation this isn't the case.
Also, what the fuck is that shit about drugs?It's like you repeat something that you've heard.Of course mentally ill people are going to take drugs, does that mean that drugs caused the shootings?Give me a break.

Post: #20

(05-20-2018 3:27 PM)stefdude Wrote:  Also, what the fuck is that shit about drugs?It's like you repeat something that you've heard.Of course mentally ill people are going to take drugs, does that mean that drugs caused the shootings?Give me a break.

Try doing some research...
Even a "normal" person that uses Chantix to quit smoking can have suicidal thoughts.