rhaig

but fouling their props is. so is throwing chemicals onto the ship. so is ramming the ship. the sea shepards have even sunk ships before. terrorist is a word with other connotations. I'd rather think of them as pirates. -- Rob

This is where political correctness runs off the rails. Don't be intentionally offensive. Good plan. But using a term that in one use (the intended one as you allow was possible) is far from racist, and is in another use racist, and now the term in both uses becomes taboo. put away your PC dictionary. We don't need extra drama here. -- Rob

you don't think a trucker fears running over the cyclist? he'd likely end up on the news, in court, out a bunch of money, and anywhere there's a critical mass group, he might end up with death threats or more. (those fuckers piss me off) -- Rob

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it. Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them. To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both: - Introduction of fear - To achieve a political agenda to be terrorism. I believe you also need intent to induce the fear. If the gun wearing tea-partiers did so in order to produce fear, then the terrorist label could be fairly applied. If they wore guns, and any fear generated was not intended by them, then they are not acting to incite fear, and (in my mind) not terrorists. Who can determine intent? Not I. just trying to tweak your definition. I believe intent is required. -- Rob

I honestly think Obama intended to deliver on most of his promises. He just lacked experience with such high levels of government and scrutiny to realize that he wouldn't be able to deliver on those promises. he's learning now, the hard way. OJT sucks. I can't imagine how painful it is with the whole world watching. -- Rob

so what's wrong with that? knowing how to read the instructions for a schedule C makes you a criminal? So start your own business out of your home. Don't make a profit. Track your expenses. Take the write off. Does that make you a crook? -- Rob

Human physiology arguments are so tired, can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position. Every aspect of human physiology points to herbivoire. wait... so are physiology arguments tired ore aren't they? Only not tired when you use them? Human physiology arguments are so tired. My argument is that I like meat. It tastes good. -- Rob

I'd pay a dollar to see either fight. -- Rob

state dependant, I believe that they may strike without cause up to a fixed number. Beyond that number, they may make a statement to the judge request that juror A be stricken for cause XYZ. The judge decides at that point. At least that's the way I remember voir dire from my criminal law class 15 years ago. -- Rob

BANG!! -- Rob

I can give you my take on it. While you can never assume that anyone will act rationally, the truth is that most people, in a normal situation, possess rational thought and use it tom some extent. In a stressful situation like the midst of a crime, all rational thought goes out the window and reaction and preservation become the norm. Keeping that in mind, my thought that guns (and carrying them) deterring violent crime, is based on pre-meditated crimes. Such that the criminal is looking for a victim, and he has to consider that his potential victim might carry a gun. With that in mind he might either pre-emptively escalate, choose another target less-likely to carry a weapon, or not do the crime at that time (postponement). The first is less likely, because criminals who are not completely random (those who choose their targets rather than just picking someone randomly) likely know that escalation of the crime escalates the punishment. I don't recall the show, but once saw an interview in a prison where a convict explained that he wouldn't use a gun because he would get more time because armed robbery was a different class of crime than agrivated robbery (or some such explaination... sorry for the lack of details). So the nickel explanation I suppose is that guns may deter violent crime before it happens because that is when rational thought is more likely to happen in a criminal actor. During a crime, rational thought is less likely expected, and shouldn't be relied upon. At least that's the way I think of it. No facts to reference. Just my ideas on the subject. -- Rob

let me get this straight.... In a thread where you're criticizing the use of "democrat party" do describe the democratic party, you're caling the republican party, the repubiclown party? you're choosing to use obviously childish misnomers to respond to purposely used (though I don't think childish) misnomers. Just checking. Good think nobody takes anyone seriously here... you're fitting right in. -- Rob

whuffo you carry dem guns? -- Rob

well then if you wish anyone to take your opinion seriously, why not make a real argument? -- Rob

Oh, I seen it somewhere. You can find it in Google. that seems like a slight directed at someone specifically. I expect you won't get called on it though. -- Rob

I believe that ; a. not travelling at all because you are too scared or b, carrying a gun all the time out of fear. Is a bit nieve. I'm not a loud ass, arrogant, violent, trouble maker though, and I probably avoid alot of trouble through mutual respect and understanding. the scared and 'outstanding' are usully the first targets! are you making the assumption that I do both A and B? I agree, by the way, that both of those would be pretty naive as well. so you're just blending in with the crowd, trying not to be a first target? There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's all you're doing, I hope you never have to rely on that strategy of personal defense. -- Rob

you believe the world is that simple? That a mugger just wants your stuff? I suppose it depends on where you travel, but that's a pretty naive viewpoint (I believe). -- Rob

You can never assume that anyone will act rationally. Ever. Assuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime is a bad idea. Assuming anyone, including a CCW holder, will act rationally in the presence of an armed criminal is also a bad idea. agreed. Never assume anything. I will assert that I believe it is more likely that someone who has undergone tactical training, including decision making and firing - both under stress conditions, will act more rationally in a stressful and adrenaline charged situation such as a crime in progress. Also note that tactical training and concealed carry have nothing to do with each other. I know of no states that require training resembling what I mentioned in order to get a concealed carry license. -- Rob

right. I was referring to the "if it saves one life" argument being a poor argument. (for either side) -- Rob

meh... I've seen it both ways. There are way better arguments. -- Rob

You can never assume that anyone will act rationally. Ever. Assuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime is a bad idea. -- Rob

but isn't one of the favorite arguments of the anti-gun lobby "but if more gun control would prevent one crime, isn't it worth it?" So if someone carrying their handgun concealed would prevent just one crime, isn't it worth it? http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html -- Rob

Your temporal sense is a bit off. I wasn't warned at the time you posted this. Unless you were whining behind the scenes to a green which lends weight to this being a troll thread. (note, that would be about the thread, not you, lest you get your panties in a wad) Clearly it's not against policy to openly wish ill upon someone. (or you'd have had your warning by now) But somehow, If I were to wish you had a car accident on the way to the DZ, I bet you'd find some way to turn that into a PA. But I don't wish you'd have a car accident on the way to the DZ. That would be wrong. But you don't get it. -- Rob

I kwew someone would start a sick fucking thread like this one. I coulda guessed it would be you Awwwwe.... well Happy Nwe Year anyway; I hope your life is still as meaningful after this thread as it was before you are a slimebag piece of shit. Taking joy in another human's suffering is wrong. Taking joy in a slimebag piece of shit's suffering is wrong. I wouldn't be happy if you were suffering. Regardless of what he has done in the past that has been wrong (either absolutely or differing in opinion from you) you shouldn't be happy he's suffering. you are a slimebag piece of shit. WHEN ARE SOME OF THESE GUYS GONNA START GETTING BANNED. Taking joy in another human's suffering is wrong. I agree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE&feature=related Regardless of what he has done in the past that has been wrong (either absolutely or differing in opinion from you) you shouldn't be happy he's suffering. Thx for guiding my value system, now will you pls start banning some of these people, mods? I wanna say shit like this too, but I control myself to show respect to the rules. I totally expected this. Even through it was a troll thread to try to get someone banned I'm sure. I'll bite. -- Rob

I kwew someone would start a sick fucking thread like this one. I coulda guessed it would be you Awwwwe.... well Happy Nwe Year anyway; I hope your life is still as meaningful after this thread as it was before you are a slimebag piece of shit. Taking joy in another human's suffering is wrong. Taking joy in a slimebag piece of shit's suffering is wrong. I wouldn't be happy if you were suffering. Regardless of what he has done in the past that has been wrong (either absolutely or differing in opinion from you) you shouldn't be happy he's suffering. -- Rob