|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| She had connections to a gang. The gunmen should be in prison for the rest of thier lives. If they can prove she has connections to the gang (somehow) that's what should happen to her too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
Just so the group hug ends and we can get back to fighting though, I would live to point out that guns, even automatic weapons like those used are not a problem. If we had a functioning society these tools would be used for their intended purposes, i.e. the autos hung on the wall in case of getting called up into the natl guard, and the shotgun would be used for hunting. Only in our currently depraved state where modernity has turned a good number of us into badly adjusted psychos willing to use violence over the tiniest of problems are guns (and anything else dangerous) such an issue.
While guns make psychotic morons like these more dangerous than they would otherwise be, I am of the opinion that you do not legislate based on the shortcomings of a disturbed minority (by that I mean psychos! not anything ethnic!) |
Automatic weaponry has no legitimate purpose in civilian hands. Rifles? Definitely: as a tool rifles are very well rounded and legitimate, assisting in everything from acquiring food and participating in a traditional sport to assisting in state ecological management to family protection. Hand guns? Debatable given they're designed specifically for killing humans, but I still think a reasonable case can be made for these weapons to be in civilian hands under the auspices of self protection. But fully automatic weapons? No way. America is not going to be facing some sort of horrific land invasion where every citizen is going to have to grab their high powered automatic weapon off the wall and take to the streets. It's simply not needed, ever. At best such a weapon will be something between a silly toy and a conversation piece. At worst, it will empower someone on a shooting spree to maximize the number of fatalities they inflict and minimize the amount of time it takes to inflict them. If there were some corresponding social good to allowing these weapons to be in civilian hands that would be one thing, but there simply is not.
If psycho killer X stabs someone with a knife, obviously knives shouldn't be banned; they are far too valuable to our society. If psycho killer X shoots someone with a rifle, again, the social value of rifles means that we needn't ban them. If psycho killer X kills a dozen people with an automatic weapon, though, it's different: unlike the other two cases, automatic weapons have no real social benefit. Thus, we're perfectly justified in applying strict limitations, since the social harm isn't being counterbalanced by a greater (or really any) social good.
Gun control regulations aren't all or nothing. There's a lot of room for compromise and common sense in order to maximize social benefit while minimizing limitations on citizens. However, organizations like the NRA, with their aggressive ideology, destroy our ability to work towards the best social solution. They are not reasonable custodians of democracy, because they care about their cause more than they care about their society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now not excusing opening fire on a crowded bus but...
1)The parent had every right to spank her child. That's her right, her business. A spanking is not child abuse, even though your opinion may be different.
2)Threatening to call CPS on a parent tends not to produce rational responses. Your basically saying "Your child should be taken away from you forever"
Typically such threats have led to lethal force use in the past. There IS a reason for this.
I mean basically you're saying someone should kidnap her kid from her. Kidnapping is a crime that you are justified in killing the assailant.
If someone EVER, EVER threatened to take my children away from them I would not take that lightly and while violence would not be my first choice, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if that's what was required.
Now should the gunmen be charged with attempted murder? Absolutely. Probably the mother to, though she would have a compelling case for temporary insanity. Most people understand that mother's don't react well to threats of child removal.
As for "culture", remember the rich kill just as many as the poor. To quote Chris Rock-
White Man makes guns. No problem.
Black Rapper says guns. Congressional hearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Threatening to call child protection services is completely within anyone's legal rights. The mother had no justification for what she did. I don't disagree with you that a single smack on the butt doesn't warrant a child being removed from the home. The thing is, I don't think an American child protection services worker would generally disagree with you either. Barring other, frequent parental abuses (which we have no reason to presuppose exist), this woman was at no risk of losing her child in this scenario, and she surely knew it. Her response was to a feeling of being "disrespected," not a fear of losing her child, something demonstrated by the fact that she chose a course of action far, far more likely to result in her being separated from her child than any random call to child services from a stranger on a bus.
Remember the video which was posted here some time back of the black guy assaulting someone in a pizza place because the fellow said something to his girlfriend? The very same principle applies here. The woman feels disrespected, and responds in the way her culture has taught her to respond: by calling in her thug(s). The idea that this could be played off as temporary insanity in any serious court of law is laughable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010 Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, do you believe the government should dictate how we live from cradle to the grave?
Oh and yes I don't anyone agrees with the tribal mind-set you think of. Now that you mention it, I see the pattern of black woman calling thugs for help. But really, is this only seen in urban black culture? It seems almost universal to a lesser degree even in our own culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Agreed gun control isn't all or nothing, but I like universal conscription (one of my few leftist views?) so I would still like to see every adult in possesion of one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox, do you believe the government should dictate how we live from cradle to the grave? |
I cannot answer this with a simple yes or no, the question is too vague. With regards to some matters, the government should surely act as a restricting force for our entire lives; from your birth until your death, for example, the government should never permit you to murder an innocent man in cold blood. There are other matters in which the government should have no say in, such as sexual activity we engage in with other consenting adults. There are still other matters in which the government should have a limited degree of control over, such as mandating that our children be educated but giving us a fair amount of room to decide the exact methodology used, be it public school, private school (religious or otherwise), or home school.
The government should clearly exert a certain degree of control from cradle to grave, but that control should be limited and always as a means to a better life for the nation's citizens (as opposed to a means towards empowerment of the elite or advancement of a particular ideology for its own sake). We can reject the extremist nanny state without in turn embracing the extremist libertarian state.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Oh and yes I don't anyone agrees with the tribal mind-set you think of. Now that you mention it, I see the pattern of black woman calling thugs for help. But really, is this only seen in urban black culture? It seems almost universal to a lesser degree even in our own culture. |
No insult levied at my mother has ever resulted in her calling in a squad of armed men to shoot up a bus full of innocent people. No doubt the same can be said of the mother of every other participant in this conversation. I'm sure you can find marks of tribal behavior to some degree or another in the behavior of most people, but it's the ridiculous extreme it's taken to in cases like this that warrants the label. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010 Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Extreme huh. I had an argument with my sister once and she ended up crying to her boyfriend about it. He drove over to my place threatening to engage in fisticuffs. The only difference here is that he didn't have a knife or a gun. These are university educated middle class people I'm talking about, white people.
So...I cannot really say that the rest of us are that much different or above this primitive backward culture you speak of. While I obviously don't condone this behavior, I don't see how this is all going away by denouncing it. It seems like this type of behavior is rooted in our genes and I see it being passed on as long as humanity exists. I hope I'm wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Now not excusing opening fire on a crowded bus but...
1)The parent had every right to spank her child. That's her right, her business. A spanking is not child abuse, even though your opinion may be different.
2)Threatening to call CPS on a parent tends not to produce rational responses. Your basically saying "Your child should be taken away from you forever"
Typically such threats have led to lethal force use in the past. There IS a reason for this.
I mean basically you're saying someone should kidnap her kid from her. Kidnapping is a crime that you are justified in killing the assailant.
If someone EVER, EVER threatened to take my children away from them I would not take that lightly and while violence would not be my first choice, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if that's what was required.
Now should the gunmen be charged with attempted murder? Absolutely. Probably the mother to, though she would have a compelling case for temporary insanity. Most people understand that mother's don't react well to threats of child removal.
As for "culture", remember the rich kill just as many as the poor. To quote Chris Rock-
White Man makes guns. No problem.
Black Rapper says guns. Congressional hearing. |
So, saying you're going to call the cops or CPS is now grounds for someone to kill you... because they might take your children away?
Quite the stretch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010 Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think rails is just saying that it was probably unwise to get involved. He sounds like a libertarian that believe that parents should be able to raise their kids whatever way they want. Gubbermint shouldnt get involved, it's none of their business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Extreme huh. I had an argument with my sister once and she ended up crying to her boyfriend about it. He drove over to my place threatening to engage in fisticuffs. The only difference here is that he didn't have a knife or a gun. |
Is that really the only difference? This was not a targeted attack. The people in question opened up a spray of bullets into a populated bus. This was a message, one directed at the entire community: don't so much as irritate one of us, or you risk death for not just yourself but everyone around you. Trying to intimidate one individual with fists and trying to intimidate an entire community with indiscriminate gun fire seem to be two vastly different things in terms of both scope and intention.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I don't see how this is all going away by denouncing it. |
It's obviously not going to go away by simply denouncing it. Denouncing it is the act of admitting there's a problem, something that many people really do seem to struggle to admit for fear of being labelled racist (as people have been on this very forum!). After the problem has been accepted by society at large, positive action must be taken. Some examples of possible measures to be taken have all ready been brought up in this thread.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It seems like this type of behavior is rooted in our genes and I see it being passed on as long as humanity exists. I hope I'm wrong. |
Well, I hope you're wrong too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It seems like this type of behavior is rooted in our genes and I see it being passed on as long as humanity exists. I hope I'm wrong. |
Well, I hope you're wrong too. |
There are certain kinds of violent behavior, like murders committed by the criminally insane, that are hard if not impossible for society to stamp out. But this is a different class of behavior. This is socialized behavior. These guys aren't psychopaths. They're normal. A very screwed up version of normal, but normal.
If kids are brought up properly, this never happens. Whole societies (and segments of American society) exist where this is unthinkable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Culturally, spanking occurs more in the poorer black areas than it does in general society at large wher 'time out' is more common. Black comics routinely joke about their mothers spanking them and they don't say spanking. Its a lot more. Her discipline may not have been what is socially acceptable even in a culture that approves of it.
Still I understand Steelrails point. Not condoning the violence but its pretty personal and bold to tell someone they are calling 911. How would you respond as a parent? Definitely an argument at the minimum. Obviously this mother went over the top.
The conncections we made to inner city at large is natural but again, this is atypical even for a high crime area as this one. If the same happened on an all white bus headed to a trailer park we probably wouldn't have made a general reference to poor whites either.
We had a chance to do something about the inner city years ago. Patrick Moynihan, wrote a report on the black family then and there was another report by a presidential appointed committee after the inner city riots of the '60s as well. Both said some similar things. One thing in particular that the black family needed a strong, working father. Directing welfare to the mother was going to hurt the black family and remove the men from the family. The government did not adhere to it and the results can be seen today. For a long time for a woman to get welfare (and perhaps still the case), no adult male over 18 could be in the house. The money was given to the mothers and the government in essence became the father and provider. Why does she need a man for? The key to making the inner cities livable again is to provide ja good education and obs, ESPECIALLY for the young black males. Young black males with jobs are less likely to join gangs, sell drugs, get girls pregnant. Look at the black males most of us know. College educated, teachers we see here or former classmates in HS and college. The overwhelming majority if not all, contributing members of society.
Poor education and lack of jobs is the source of most crime areas. All races are represented in jail and almost always have those lackings in common--- under educated and under employed. Prisoners in jail are from the poor and working poor almost exclusively be they white, black, latino or asian. A good percentage with no fathers in the home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Now not excusing opening fire on a crowded bus but...
1)The parent had every right to spank her child. That's her right, her business. A spanking is not child abuse, even though your opinion may be different.
2)Threatening to call CPS on a parent tends not to produce rational responses. Your basically saying "Your child should be taken away from you forever"
Typically such threats have led to lethal force use in the past. There IS a reason for this.
I mean basically you're saying someone should kidnap her kid from her. Kidnapping is a crime that you are justified in killing the assailant.
If someone EVER, EVER threatened to take my children away from them I would not take that lightly and while violence would not be my first choice, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if that's what was required.
Now should the gunmen be charged with attempted murder? Absolutely. Probably the mother to, though she would have a compelling case for temporary insanity. Most people understand that mother's don't react well to threats of child removal.
As for "culture", remember the rich kill just as many as the poor. To quote Chris Rock-
White Man makes guns. No problem.
Black Rapper says guns. Congressional hearing. |
So, saying you're going to call the cops or CPS is now grounds for someone to kill you... because they might take your children away?
Quite the stretch. |
You're a parent, how would you or your wife react to a complete stranger calling you abusive and threatening to take your kids away via CPS?
Maybe calmly at first...of course if it looked like it might actually happen you might flip out...
I can't imagine a parent in the world who wouldn't get seriously hostile to a complete stranger threatening to have their kids taken away by calling the authorities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
You're a parent, how would you or your wife react to a complete stranger calling you abusive and threatening to take your kids away via CPS?
Maybe calmly at first...of course if it looked like it might actually happen you might flip out...
I can't imagine a parent in the world who wouldn't get seriously hostile to a complete stranger threatening to have their kids taken away by calling the authorities. |
I would get very (verbally) hostile. I wouldn't resort to violence or shoot anybody though... Not unless they were physically at my house with an imminent threat that they would kidnap my child.
I will say that basically that's all the CPS does in many cases: kidnaps children from their parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|