Oh? There hasn't been a change in that now that you've decided to blame the cops, you've calculated that your initial focus on blaming the toy gun would at least partially absolve the cops of the blame, a situation that cannot be borne?
Yes I say so. It reminds me of the argument we often have about a burglar stealing a gun which is not locked up securely. You say only the thief is to blame. I say both the thief and the gun owner are. My idea is that in situations like these, there isn't just one 100% amount of guilt to be divided up. One person can be guilty of one thing while the other is guilty of something else. The world is not as simple as you try to make it, at least when it suits your biased world view.
"...there isn't just one 100% amount of guilt to be divided up."
Classic MikeB quote right there. What's the point of having the term "100%" then? Since you now have two 100%s, what term do you want to use to refer to all of this new 200% total?
MikeB: "With gun theft during a burglary, the breaking in and taking an unsecured gun is bad and the leaving guns around the house unsecured is equally bad."
See, in our language, it would be ok to refer to what you just described as "half and half", or "50/50".
The trigger-happy motherfuckers didn't have time to verbally warn the kid, especially not the two times that they claimed. They came out of the car blasting.
Why would you support such behavior? Are you that contentious with me, anything I post you argue against it even if you agree?
The trigger-happy [Mikeb shrieking rage noise] didn't have time to verbally warn the kid . . .
How long does it take to say "drop the gun" twice? Can you tell if the passenger side window was down (I can't), thus providing for the possibility that the warnings started before the car had even come to a complete stop?
Why would you support such behavior?
You have no idea of what I "support" with regard to this tragedy, because I haven't expressed any "support." I simply lack evidence of lying on the cops' part. I know very well, though, that you and I have vastly different standards of evidence (in that I require some), especially when it comes to accusations of "lying."
It seems you and ssgmarkcr also have vastly differing standards. Your standard is disagree with me regardless of anything. His is to be reasonable and honest, which results in disagreeing with me on almost everything. But that's not good enough for you, is it?
I greatly respect SSG, but of course we don't march in lockstep (this, by the way, would seem to be a case of me agreeing with you--certainly not disagreeing with you--proving you wrong by the end of your second sentence).
Help me out, and point to an incident of me being dishonest. I haven't noticed you finding a real one so far, despite your endless efforts. Note that I did not say "unreasonable or dishonest," because judgments of reasonableness (spell check seems to prefer that to "reasonability"--I'm not sure I agree) are too subjective for debate over whether or not my statements are reasonable to be productive.
In the end, though, even if your "theory" is correct, does it really matter if SSG and I come to disagreeing with you by different routes? The hilarious part is that you so often accuse me of being "whiny and petty."
What--no "ban them sumbitches" any more? What has changed?
ReplyDeleteNothing has changed, Kurt.
DeleteNothing has changed, Kurt.
DeleteOh? There hasn't been a change in that now that you've decided to blame the cops, you've calculated that your initial focus on blaming the toy gun would at least partially absolve the cops of the blame, a situation that cannot be borne?
If you say so.
Yes I say so. It reminds me of the argument we often have about a burglar stealing a gun which is not locked up securely. You say only the thief is to blame. I say both the thief and the gun owner are. My idea is that in situations like these, there isn't just one 100% amount of guilt to be divided up. One person can be guilty of one thing while the other is guilty of something else. The world is not as simple as you try to make it, at least when it suits your biased world view.
Delete"...there isn't just one 100% amount of guilt to be divided up."
DeleteClassic MikeB quote right there. What's the point of having the term "100%" then? Since you now have two 100%s, what term do you want to use to refer to all of this new 200% total?
You're just being difficult, TS. I explained it quite clearly. "One person can be guilty of one thing while the other is guilty of something else. "
DeleteUh huh, and if you wanted to quantify one of those as worse than the other, how would you go about that in Mikespeak?
DeleteIn this case, the playing with a toy gun is bad but the shooting of a kid playing with it is really bad.
DeleteWith gun theft during a burglary, the breaking in and taking an unsecured gun is bad and the leaving guns around the house unsecured is equally bad.
Regardless of your bias in assigning amounts of wrong to these actions, the main point is they are separate from one another.
With gun theft during a burglary, the breaking in and taking an unsecured gun is bad and the leaving guns around the house unsecured is equally bad.
DeleteHome invasion, and theft of a person's means of defending life and liberty, is no more "wrong" than failing to keep all one's firearms in a vault?
MikeB: "With gun theft during a burglary, the breaking in and taking an unsecured gun is bad and the leaving guns around the house unsecured is equally bad."
DeleteSee, in our language, it would be ok to refer to what you just described as "half and half", or "50/50".
And can you specify the nature of the alleged "lying" on the cops' part?
ReplyDeleteYou just love playing dumb, don't you Kurt?
DeleteThe trigger-happy motherfuckers didn't have time to verbally warn the kid, especially not the two times that they claimed. They came out of the car blasting.
Why would you support such behavior? Are you that contentious with me, anything I post you argue against it even if you agree?
The trigger-happy [Mikeb shrieking rage noise] didn't have time to verbally warn the kid . . .
DeleteHow long does it take to say "drop the gun" twice? Can you tell if the passenger side window was down (I can't), thus providing for the possibility that the warnings started before the car had even come to a complete stop?
Why would you support such behavior?
You have no idea of what I "support" with regard to this tragedy, because I haven't expressed any "support." I simply lack evidence of lying on the cops' part. I know very well, though, that you and I have vastly different standards of evidence (in that I require some), especially when it comes to accusations of "lying."
It seems you and ssgmarkcr also have vastly differing standards. Your standard is disagree with me regardless of anything. His is to be reasonable and honest, which results in disagreeing with me on almost everything. But that's not good enough for you, is it?
DeleteI greatly respect SSG, but of course we don't march in lockstep (this, by the way, would seem to be a case of me agreeing with you--certainly not disagreeing with you--proving you wrong by the end of your second sentence).
DeleteHelp me out, and point to an incident of me being dishonest. I haven't noticed you finding a real one so far, despite your endless efforts. Note that I did not say "unreasonable or dishonest," because judgments of reasonableness (spell check seems to prefer that to "reasonability"--I'm not sure I agree) are too subjective for debate over whether or not my statements are reasonable to be productive.
In the end, though, even if your "theory" is correct, does it really matter if SSG and I come to disagreeing with you by different routes? The hilarious part is that you so often accuse me of being "whiny and petty."
The proof of SS's dishonesty is plastered all over your blog and admitted by SS himself.
Delete