Famous Celebrities that have served in the Military...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

There is no excuse, NONE, for troops firing rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's the sort of thing that happened in occupied Europe in 1944 and that we rightly condemned.

I agree 100%.
There was also no excuse for those soldiers to have been given live ammo.
There was no excuse for the government to send poorly trained and semi-disciplined troops into a powder keg of a situation.
AND there was no excuse for the protesters to turn to violence.
Plenty of blame to go around.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

So, what you are saying is that these kids weren't at fault, in any way, shape, or form.

I'm saying they didn't do anything that warranted fusillades of bullets.

Apparently you are unaware of any middle ground between complete innocence and guilt on a scale that warrants lethal force.

Quote

I also conclude from your responses that you would just stand there and do nothing if someone starts throwing stuff at you.

You can conclude from my response that if someone who was no closer than 70 feet from me threw a stone, I would not shoot them.

Apparently I can conclude that:

a) You would, and

b) you also have no concept of a middle ground between doing nothing and killing someone.

Quote

That would be an interesting experiment

I'd really, really like to see the results of a psychology experiment in which you give similar answers to what you've stated above.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

I concurr. I'm not defending the NG actions.

Bullshit. By your use of black and white "do nothing or murder" scenarios you are absolutely defending the NG.

Quote

I am arguing that the instigators, who, went there with the intention of getting a violent response, got what they were looking for and it is not comperable to the comment made regarding a woman being at fault by wearing a short skirt.

It is comparable. The woman in a short skirt wants to get a reaction from men, she doesn't want to get raped. The protestors want to get a reaction from the authorities, they don't want to get shot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

That is a very poor analogy. Most women who are raped do nothing to provoke their assailant and do not want a confrontation of any kind.

You misunderstand the analogy. Think sexual response vs violent response.

Quote

But no matter which way you spin the tale, the facts remain that the protester were actively and intentionally escalating the situation,

And no matter which way you spin it, many women on a night out actively and intentionally escalate their provocative dress, bahviour and general desirability to men - but not to the point where rape is warranted or deserved.

Same here. The protesters may have been looking for a reaction - but they were certainly nowhere near the point where volleys of bullets were either asked for, warranted or deserved.

I'm starting to wonder who you'd blame for Tiananmen Square.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

There is no excuse, NONE, for troops firing rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's the sort of thing that happened in occupied Europe in 1944 and that we rightly condemned.

I agree 100%.

Bollocks. Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

You cannot unify this stance with your previous arguments.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no excuse, NONE, for troops firing rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's the sort of thing that happened in occupied Europe in 1944 and that we rightly condemned.

I agree 100%.

Bollocks. Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

You cannot unify this stance with your previous arguments.

Why? Because you don't think the same way I do? I can understand your point of view and Bills, though I disagree on a couple points. Are you incapable of doing likewise?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no excuse, NONE, for troops firing rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians. It's the sort of thing that happened in occupied Europe in 1944 and that we rightly condemned.

I agree 100%.

Bollocks. Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

You cannot unify this stance with your previous arguments.

Why? Because you don't think the same way I do? I can understand your point of view and Bills, though I disagree on a couple points. Are you incapable of doing likewise?

It's not about me agreeing or disagreeing, it's about you saying two different things.

You cannot say that the protesters are as guilty as if they pulled the triggers themselves while also saying that there is no excuse for the NG doing what they did. As stated these are mutually exclusive positions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Billvon . . .

Be honest, if you picked up some rocks and threw them at some guys holding some guns, you HONESTLY would have NO IDEA whatsoever that you might get shot, or shot at?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

I'll ask you the same question I asked Billvon . . .

Be honest, if you picked up some rocks and threw them at some guys holding some guns, you HONESTLY would have NO IDEA whatsoever that you might get shot, or shot at?

Yes, those students were all destined to be MLB pitchers, being able to throw rocks 300 feet like that.

I can understand that brave, well trained military men would be in fear of their lives if someone 100 yards away threw a rock.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

You cannot say that the protesters are as guilty as if they pulled the triggers themselves while also saying that there is no excuse for the NG doing what they did. As stated these are mutually exclusive positions.

Therein lies the problem. The two statements are not mutually exclusive as you think they are.
There were three major events that took place leading up to the shootings: The government sending ill trained troops with live ammo, the soldiers deciding to fire, and the students turning a peaceful protest into a violent one. If any of these three had not taken place the chain breaks and Kent State is just another school. Fact is, there was no excuse for any of the three to have happened and thus each holds responsibility for what happened that day.
You can't hold somebody down while your buddy stabs them and then claim their death was not any of your fault. You can't get drunk, drive, cause a fatal accident, then say the death was not your fault because the other guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

Now, do you care to tell me what violent and illegal act a rape victim does to incite her attacker?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

The two statements are not mutually exclusive as you think they are.

They are. By saying what you say about the the students, you claim that they set in motion an inevitable and immutable chain of events that leaves the NG no choice but to fire. You can't say they have no excuse for their actions when you're simultaneously saying they had no choice.

Quote

You can't hold somebody down while your buddy stabs them and then claim their death was not any of your fault.

But funnily enough, the protestors and the NG weren't colluding with each other.

Quote

You can't get drunk, drive, cause a fatal accident, then say the death was not your fault because the other guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

Your analogy falls down at the first steop there, since the protesters didn't cause any fatalities.

Quote

Now, do you care to tell me what violent and illegal act a rape victim does to incite her attacker?

You still misunderstand, even though I've explained where you're going wrong.

The analogy is about strength of intended response. The provocatively dressed woman wants to incite a sexual response, but not one as strong as rape. She also has no reasonable grounds to think that she will get raped as a result.

The protesters may have wanted a response from the NG, they certainly didn't want to get shot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

I'll ask you the same question I asked Billvon . . .

Because your last question crashed and burned?

Hey Turtlespeed, if someone threw a stone at you from 70 feet away you'd shoot them, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Niki1 1]

Quote

>Ernest Borgnine... Navy PT-boat commander!

In that case don't forget Alan Hale and Bob Denver!

Coast Guard, right? "You have to go out. You don't have to come back in."

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Hey Turtlespeed . . .

Hey Jakee, can you answer the question?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Hey Turtlespeed . . .

Hey Jakee, can you answer the question?

Facing professionally trained soldiers in a free country, no. I would no more expect to face a volley of gunfire for throwing a stone from over 70 yards away than I would for just being there.

My turn. Your earlier line of questioning indicates that you would shoot someone who threw a stone at you from 70 feet away. Can you confirm that this is the case?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey Turtlespeed . . .

Hey Jakee, can you answer the question?

Facing professionally trained soldiers in a free country, no. I would no more expect to face a volley of gunfire for throwing a stone from over 70 yards away than I would for just being there.

My turn. Your earlier line of questioning indicates that you would shoot someone who threw a stone at you from 70 feet away. Can you confirm that this is the case?

Honest answer: It would depend on the situation and the variables.

70 yards is NOT an unreachable distance. You would have to put a LOT of effort into the throw though. That would make it possibly a deadly weapon. How many people are throwing the rocks? What other options are there? I would take steps to avoid actually having to pull the trigger, and leave firing the weapon as the very last option.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hey Turtlespeed . . .

Hey Jakee, can you answer the question?

Facing professionally trained soldiers in a free country, no. I would no more expect to face a volley of gunfire for throwing a stone from over 70 yards away than I would for just being there.

My turn. Your earlier line of questioning indicates that you would shoot someone who threw a stone at you from 70 feet away. Can you confirm that this is the case?

Honest answer: It would depend on the situation and the variables.

70 yards is NOT an unreachable distance. You would have to put a LOT of effort into the throw though. That would make it possibly a deadly weapon. How many people are throwing the rocks? What other options are there? I would take steps to avoid actually having to pull the trigger, and leave firing the weapon as the very last option.

I see. So your earlier question, in which you proposed a dichotomy between either doing absolutely nothing or firing wildly into a crowd, was one that you knew to be bullshit?

Nice to know what level you're debating on here.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[okalb 104]

Ok, let's try it this way. An underage girl goes into a bar dressed like a slut. Proceeds to do shots with every guy that will buy them for her. She proceeds to flirt with every guy in the place. She flashes her tits to anyone that wants to see them. She is attracting as much attention as she can. She has already broken a few laws by being there and drinking in the first place as well as public nudity. She walks to the bathroom and a guy follows her in there and rapes her. Is she at fault for being raped.

She was certainly asking for it wasn't she? She broke several laws. So by your logic she must be at fault. Of course in the real world she is not at fault and shouldn't be. She was raped. It makes no difference how she was acting before the rape took place.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

I see. So your earlier question, in which you proposed a dichotomy between either doing absolutely nothing or firing wildly into a crowd, was one that you knew to be bullshit?

Nice to know what level you're debating on here.

Perhaps you can show me where I proposed such a thing. I have re-read the thread and I think you have me confused with someone else.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

I see. So your earlier question, in which you proposed a dichotomy between either doing absolutely nothing or firing wildly into a crowd, was one that you knew to be bullshit?

Nice to know what level you're debating on here.

Perhaps you can show me where I proposed such a thing. I have re-read the thread and I think you have me confused with someone else.

Nope, it's you. Re-read your 'conclusions'.

I'll recap for you: Because I said that the protesters did not make the NG start shooting, you concluded that I would do nothing if someone threw something at me.

As I pointed out at the time, it's a stupid statement that denies the existence of any options between "do nothing" and "fire into a crowd". Since your recent response shows that you do in fact know that there are other options in between the two extremes, then you knew that your earlier conclusion was bollocks, but you said it anyway because you wanted to make a rhetorical point.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see. So your earlier question, in which you proposed a dichotomy between either doing absolutely nothing or firing wildly into a crowd, was one that you knew to be bullshit?

Nice to know what level you're debating on here.

Perhaps you can show me where I proposed such a thing. I have re-read the thread and I think you have me confused with someone else.

Nope, it's you. Re-read your 'conclusions'.

I'll recap for you: Because I said that the protesters did not make the NG start shooting, you concluded that I would do nothing if someone threw something at me.

As I pointed out at the time, it's a stupid statement that denies the existence of any options between "do nothing" and "fire into a crowd". Since your recent response shows that you do in fact know that there are other options in between the two extremes, then you knew that your earlier conclusion was bollocks, but you said it anyway because you wanted to make a rhetorical point.

No . . . I said that I concl . . . Here - read it again for yourself

Show me where you mentioned other options in your response.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

Nope, it's you. Re-read your 'conclusions'.

I'll recap for you: Because I said that the protesters did not make the NG start shooting, you concluded that I would do nothing if someone threw something at me.

No . . . I said that I concl . . . Here - read it again for yourself

You: "I also conclude from your responses that you would just stand there and do nothing if someone starts throwing stuff at you."

Quote

Show me where you mentioned other options in your response.

Me: "b) you also have no concept of a middle ground between doing nothing and killing someone. "


Are you sure you re-read this thread?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope, it's you. Re-read your 'conclusions'.

I'll recap for you: Because I said that the protesters did not make the NG start shooting, you concluded that I would do nothing if someone threw something at me.

No . . . I said that I concl . . . Here - read it again for yourself

You: "I also conclude from your responses that you would just stand there and do nothing if someone starts throwing stuff at you."

Quote

Show me where you mentioned other options in your response.

Me: "b) you also have no concept of a middle ground between doing nothing and killing someone. "

Jumping from post to post to gather what you want is nonsensical and misleading. I posted a likt to the exact thread we are discussing, could you do the same?

BTW . . . Nowhere in the post that I copied here makes any reference to any midle ground . . . that came later, and is therefore irrelevant to your argument at present.

Are you sure you re-read this thread?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,564]

What on earth are you talking about?

Really, you'll have to explain a few things before we can continue.

First, what did you mean by "No, I said that I concl..." As shown, what I said you said you concluded is exactly what you said you concluded. So what were you disagreeing with?

Second, what do you actually mean when you ask me to show you where I mentioned other options? I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Ok, let's try it this way. An underage girl goes into a bar dressed like a slut. Proceeds to do shots with every guy that will buy them for her. She proceeds to flirt with every guy in the place. She flashes her tits to anyone that wants to see them. She is attracting as much attention as she can. She has already broken a few laws by being there and drinking in the first place as well as public nudity. She walks to the bathroom and a guy follows her in there and rapes her. Is she at fault for being raped.

She was certainly asking for it wasn't she? She broke several laws. So by your logic she must be at fault. Of course in the real world she is not at fault and shouldn't be. She was raped. It makes no difference how she was acting before the rape took place.

No, she wasn't asking to be raped. But neither did she trun to violence to get a violent reaction in return, unlike the protesters.
Lets say the same girl, doing the same things, grabs a guy by the crotch, shouts out so everyone can hear "I want you to fuck me", and then leads him to the bathroom. Was she then raped? If she changed he mind and said "no", then she was. But she sure as hell did a lot to provoke it.

Comparing the protesters to a rape victim is still a very poor analogy since most rape victims do nothing to incite the act, while the protesters got the violent reaction they wanted only it was a violence far in excess of anything reasonable.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.