T Nation

Bad Guys

Annoying because you seem to be convinved you’re actually affecting me by posting about things that happened before I was born, and thus about which I fortunatelly can’t be accounted for.

Adal? Have no ideia, I didn’t read his thread and I didn’t read Chris article either, it’s of no interest to me. IF you think more guns are the solution for your internal problems then be my guest, you’re the ones that are getting shot by them…:slight_smile:

Dan C:

If we follow the logical consequences of your statement that:

Right without might ain’t worth shit

Then if my neighbour’s tree is overhanging my property, not only do I have the right to cut it down, but I also need to go next door and thump/ shoot/ maim him to get the point across.

You know, I’d hate to play trivial Pursuit at your house.

My understanding is that any portion of a tree that hangs over your property can be cut, but only to the point it enters your property line in most jurisdictions.


Exaggeration for effect.

If you’re going to go and beat someone for having a branch on your property why stop at the branch??


The Mage : I approve your point of view.

Iscariot: Sure. Exagerate. If you are the type to use a nuke bomb to wipe out an ant’s nest, be my guest. Personally, I’d question the judiciousness and ‘economy’ of resources of that to ‘have and effect’. Using the shotgun approach, you’ll probably do more ‘collateral damage’ and ‘victims’ than necessary, and you’ll certainly make new ‘enemies’ along the way, not to mention that you poorly use resources at your disposal. I’ll take the laser-sharp tomahawk approach to the carpet bombing anyday, thank you very much.

Might and force is like anything else, use the strict minimum to get the (precise) job done and keep others out of it as much as possible. And if someone ain’t intelligent enough to responsibly use the ‘tools’ at his hand, he should not have access to them or be restrained from using them at that utmost. He is not only a danger for himself, he is a danger for anybody else, too.

And for someone who can’t answer (does not have the means to), well, IMHO, if you can’t put up, shut up and concentrate where you can really do something useful.

But you already knew that, eh, Iscariot?

As for your example, TheMage resumes it best. I’d cut what I could, legally.


My last statement was just a little bit of info on legal rights in some jurisdictions. (At least in America.) I personally didn’t say anything about beating anyone. Ok so it was an exaggeration, which is a great way to twist the truth. You read DAN C’s comment, “Right without might aint worth shit.” But you completely ignored the word “Right.” In this sentence it meant “to do the right thing.” Bashing in a neighbors head for a limb is not the right thing, and cannot fit this description. The statement may seem simplistic, but it is deeper then you might think.

Now, has everyone noticed that the discussions on this issue have deteriorated severely? I am interested in having an intellectual discourse, but I am repeatedly running into distortions, fallacies, the ignoring of facts, and these exaggerations. People don’t seem to be able to stay on subject, assuming they can bolster their argument by adding in completely unrelated information but trying to make it seem like it fits. “My brother went bowling and now my right arm hurts.” It almost sounds logical, but it isn’t. Some statements are not as obvious.

Iscariot, why would you pick a moniker named after the bad guy apostle that betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot, son of Simon? As I recall, he also committed suicide. You’re not planning to off yourself I presume…are you? Or is this just some kind of obtruse anti-religous statement? A very curious choice of names my friend!

" I am interested in having an intellectual discourse, but I am repeatedly running into distortions, fallacies, the ignoring of facts, and these exaggerations."

I don’t think you “are” serious about having an intellectual discourse, when you dismiss out of hand any information that doesn’t come from obviously Republican or conservative news sources.

Your statement is a little disingenuous, The Mage.

Dan C, [Mage i’ll deal with you in a minute], of course it’s all about using the correct amount of force for the appropriate job.

Except you didn’t add any qualifiers.
Simply, “Right without might…” allows me to have fun. Please note I attacked the statement, not you; and hell, it wasn’t even an attack. :slight_smile:

As for you Mage. I could have interpreted your “legal clarification” as a personal attack - providing information my backside, but instead I clarified per my previous post.

As for your ‘intellectual needs’. Yay for you. I could take the same line and say that I am sick of ad hominem attacks as rebuttal from so-called intellectual conservatives. Get off your high horse.

All I can say is thank whatever for Cupcake, Boston Barrister and Avoids Roids.

Avoids, I do have a specific reason for the choice of my name.

Frankly, I can’t be bothered dealing with it in a open forum, I’ve got better things to do than field more abuse, or a personal nature, from the hysterical.

If you’re really [genuinely] interested, give me an IM


You only get your source of information from one biased source and are incapable of thinking for yourself. I have not dismissed anything without obvious reasons. Unfortunately you are incapable of understanding that. It also helps if you actually read the links you post, and not just the headline, or just the statement added by your favorite website.

“As for your ‘intellectual needs’. Yay for you. I could take the same line and say that I am sick of ad hominem attacks as rebuttal from so-called intellectual conservatives. Get off your high horse.”

Glad you are avoiding the intellectual arguments. I have tried my best to avoid personal attacks, and yet have received some. I have been trying to discuss the issues, and not try to get too personal. I make a few off the cuff remarks for fun, but nothing majorly serious. If I wanted to get down into the mud I could do so easily. (Then again if I said what I could the Mod might stop all my posts.)

The Mage
Perhaps you might take a look at the website for “FAIR”: Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting

Oh, I know you only believe what you see on the Fox News Channel. They’re “fair and balanced” all right, they’ve got one “liberal” on a 24 hour news channel.

Enter the “No-Spin Zone”! LOL

The “liberal media” is a myth. There are 5 or so media giants who control the vast majority of the press, TV, radio and other media. And you may be surprised to hear that big corporations are not “liberal”.


Wow, a different site. Fair.org. Cool, a “completely unbiased source.” Exactly what this has to do with anything I don’t know. Your absolutely biased website won’t be mentioned by Fair because it is not big enough. I am in no way saying that the American media is fair or perfect. I find much of it sucks, and for the most part is biased to the left. (Which I will explain in a few lines.) I will respond regardless of the fact it seems to be posted for no reason.

Lets see what the Fair website has to say:

“Jeff Cohen founded FAIR in 1986.” - “FAIR was launched in mid-1986 at a time when the major media were bending distinctly rightward.”
There might be a few large media giants, but they do not control the media as much as you might think. I have even watched news reports complaining about their own organizations. These giants do not care what they broadcast, as long as they make money. This media bias does exist not because of any intent, but because of the subconscious mind. People’s beliefs act as filters for reality. A conservative will always see an event through conservative eyes, and a liberal will always see events through liberal eyes. Being aware of this is the only way to help get rid of ones own bias. And knowing that this bias exists helps to better understand the news.

With around 90% of reporters voting liberally the news media is 90% liberally biased. These people do not realize this in themselves. Reporting tends to draw more liberal reporters then conservative reporters. Other jobs will tend to draw more conservatives. It is just a fact of life. This means that 90% of all news is pushed a little left. Cohen by seeing the media as conservative actually shows his liberal bias. If you stand to the left of a road it will look like it is on the right to you. The farther left you move, the farther right the road looks. This is exactly the same if a person is standing to the right of the road. (This is a parable, and a very accurate one.)

“At MSNBC, Cohen was a senior producer on ‘Donahue’?” A very liberally biased talk show host.
“Formerly, he was a regular panelist on Fox News Channel’s News Watch.” Uh, I though we couldn’t trust Fox News. Can we trust a site created by a Fox News “lackey”? Maybe this explains why they have a radio program called “Counter Spin” and O’Reily has the “No Spin Zone”?
“Prior to launching FAIR in 1986, Cohen worked in Los Angeles as a journalist, and as a lawyer for the ACLU. His investigative articles ran in Rolling Stone, New Times, Mother Jones and other publications. He was a boardmember of several public interest groups, including the ACLU of Southern California and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference/L.A.” The ACLU is a very liberal organization, and I am pretty sure the three magazines listed lean left of center. I found the website for the SCLC/L.A. And they seem to be a social organization that might be doing great things for their community, but their mission statement is obviously liberally biased.

I don’t know what you think Fair is, but it is a political organization attempting to influence the news media. Oh and you should not use the blanket statement that “big corporations are not ‘liberal’.” The two richest men in the world are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is a Democrat, and I believe that Bill Gates at least was a Democrat. Many big corporations push liberal agendas, and politics. The oil industry keeps supporting liberal legislation on the oil industry, (secretly) because it gives them an excuse to slow and reduce the supply of refined oil available.