peacefuljeffrey

That's why I have a hard time believing the claim. Her kids, some of them, were years old. She had apparently been able to do the shopping, bathing, clothing kids thing... and then like you said, BOOM, she's crazy and drowns FIVE of them in one afternoon?! It's easy to say yeah, "CRAZY," because who ELSE would do it but a crazy person? But that does not, I feel, exculpate someone from their responsibility for the crime and the need to be punished for it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do those figures include all the times (it seems quite often, heuristically) when people are not even tried, because they are deemed "not fit to stand trial" in the first place? That would seem to fall outside of ever even mounting an attempted insanity defense... And as I said, heuristically at least, it seems to be quite common. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You're right. I question the necessity of having three kids when a couple knows there is not enough food around to feed themselves, much less themselves and one kid, much less themselves and three kids. (Of course, the father probably was some Sudanese warlord's minion, so it was probably just the mother and the kids...) I question it any time anyone brings into the world a kid they can't afford to take adequate care of. Maybe the picture should show a couple fucking and ask, "Necessity?" and next to it would be a picture of a loaf of bread. Don't make 'em if you can't feed 'em. How's that? (And don't jump down my fuckin' throat: YES, the kids are innocent in this. The parents are the fuckin' assholes.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm just curious -- how would a person swinging a 5-foot-long cue stick at (at a guy who at the time had a hatchet the size of a hammer) qualify as "unarmed"? - Even more curious, now that someone bothered to find another source on the story and we find they DID try to stop him, you don't seem to be calling them pansies as much. Wouldn't want to address the fact that I asked a very valid question just there, huh? I'd say it seems that not enough of these patrons tried to stop him, nor did they act soon enough. The fact that the bartender picked up a phone instead of rushing to pick up a bottle, bat, cue stick (what bartender doesn't have a deal-breaker behind the bar of some sort? Oh, a gay one?), but instead picked up a phone and told everyone to hustle out of there. (Gay bar? "Hustle"? Hahahaa! ) Perhaps the ones who attempted to stop the guy (ones? one?) were not pansies. The rest of them? Yeah, pretty much. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's a familiar smell. You've found by now, I take it, that you can't wash it off yourself, huh? Explains the familiarity. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Objection, your honor... relevance. It's more... intimate. Hence, one would have more of a protectionist bond with one's anal sex partners? Maybe? I dunno... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You don't seem to be very well able to analyze similarities and differences in what you read. In that thread, I was focused on the notion that someone on a shooting rampage is best opposed by would-be victims who have their own guns -- especially those who have had advance warning that a rampage is taking place (sounds of shots fired, advancing closer, etc.) In this case, in the closed quarters of a bar, a guy began an attack with a hatchet and the gun did not come into play until after he made his violent intentions known. The time to stop him would have been then. But even once the gun was presented, one, two, three guys rushing him could have worked wonders. One grabs the gun arm, points it at the ceiling. Others weigh him/drag him to the ground, pummel him, subdue him, hold him for the police. The lady in the post office did not walk in holding a pointed stick before suddenly shooting everyone. The situations appear to have been very different. On top of all that, if the bartender had such a bad feeling about this guy from the start, maybe he should have had someone "watch him closely, he's acting funny." Then that person could have been on-edge, ready to respond with force if necessary. For the record, what I bitched about in the first story was that due to idiotic laws, no one was able to be legally armed so that they could have SHOT that bitch, forget about DISARMING her. And someone should have been able to shoot this gaybashing psycho, too, as a matter of fact. Laws that disarm the good people do no one any good, except for the bad people. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If someone started hacking up your friends at the DZ, would your reaction be to run away, rather than to try and stop the attack and save your friends? No, and I'm not even having SEX with my friends at the DZ! (much less anal sex!) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do we know that the bar was "busy, dark"? If the attacker had such an easy time selecting and shooting victims, why would it be difficult for someone else with a gun to identify and shoot him? It seems pretty clear that anyone around knew exactly who the aggressor was... This seems like the argument that a gun won't do you any good for defense, because a criminal attacker will just "take it from you and use your own gun against you." Begs the question, "If it's so friggin' easy to take a gun away from someone, why wouldn't I be able to just snatch it right back?" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm just curious -- how would a person swinging a 5-foot-long cue stick at (at a guy who at the time had a hatchet the size of a hammer) qualify as "unarmed"? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Of course, it happened in the gun-free utopia of Massachusetts. So naturally, the only person with a gun was the attacker, and everyone is conditioned to run and hide, but fuck no, not to fight back. The CNN.com story Anyway, I think I am more sickened (can you tell?) by the attitudes of these people than I am about the maniac who attacked them. "Help! Help! Police! Come save us! WE can't possibly fight for our OWN lives!" Can you just fucking imagine seeing a guy standing over someone with a hatchet, and instead of rushing over to clobber the guy using anything that came to hand, you picked up a motherfucking TELEPHONE and started calling the police?! How the fuck could you face yourself after that, much less the guy you left to the maniac? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wherever you go, God's punishment is going to cause the innocents around you to suffer. You should probably go live out in a tent in a very isolated desert, just to be fair to everyone else. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Umm, we don't even give life sentences out to a large number of the sane murderers. So... recognition of that -- and of how wrong it is -- is reason to not start now? I don't get it. Are you defending not giving life sentences -- if you won't advocate execution -- for murderers? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, probably. But I worked til 2 and the cafeteria has free WiFi... all I have at home is dialup So I stayed late tonight. Um, 2 hours late. Turkey is not the only muslim country calling for, um, shall we say "drastic opposition" to the publishing of these comics, is it? I have to imagine (though I have not gone out into cyberspace in search of more articles) that other islamic nations are joining the call to censor the news in free countries around the world just for the sake of not offending the pussy sensibilities of muslims of all nations. Anyway, the very idea that people of a given religion can be so obsessively preoccupied with what the fuck the rest of the world thinks of them makes islam pathetic, in my view. If they're happy worshiping their god the way they want, they shouldn't give a hairy rat's ass what I or some Danish comic-strip writer thinks of them or their god or their prophet. I think it's well past time for muslims to get the fuck over themselves. The world does not have to restrict its freedom just to keep from offending these fuckin' NUTS. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, come on, of course! Murderers are just like you and me -- they're not bad people, they're just misunderstood! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There's a wee bit of difference between Turkey and the old Afghanistan... Would that difference matter much to the person who drew these cartoons if he happened to be gotten ahold of by the present Turkish government? Do you really believe that this person would be allowed to fare very well at the hands of Turkish muslims? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Will those armed and dangerous security guards accompany you to your car from the post office, or from the mall entrance, or from the theater? Will they follow you home in case someone "marked" you and your purchase of that fiiiine television or jewelry item? If not, then they are useless to you as soon as you leave their immediate presence -- if you venture where a criminal predator could single you out. In that case, it's my belief, you'd better have your own gun, 'cause no one is really responsible for saving your ass but you. After all, no one is with you every moment of every day but you No, I would not agree that any "deterrent" that can easily be known by criminals to be unable to protect would-be victims everywhere they could possibly go is effective, or even adequate. If it didn't have "at least one armed guard," then it was easy pickin's. If it did have "at least one armed guard," then that's proof that an armed guard is not omnipresent, and cannot be everywhere to save everyone wherever they could possibly be threatened. What if a woman goes into a bathroom in an armed-guarded facility, and there is a lurker in there, waiting to rape her? What good is the armed guard? The rapist can do what he wants because it's very unlikely that the armed guard, who knows how many yards or hundreds of yards or building floors away, is ever going to even be aware she's being attacked. In that case, she'd better have the means of defending herself. It is quite well-established that handguns are excellent for this purpose. Do you count on that strip mall's security to save you from a mugger or murderer? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Imagine if we made that a standard policy: Judge: You murdered a man by stabbing him to death in a department store after getting high on crack and drinking a twelve-pack of beer. Man: Well, judge, it was the combination of crack and beer and the fact that the guy was, well, lookin' at me funny... It just set me over the edge. Judge: OH! Okay! I'm sorry. Well, you are to be released on your own recogniscence under the provision that you never drink beer while you are smoking crack again. That's how it happened before, so obviously the public is safe as long as you stay away from that particular trigger! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There's absolutely nothing in the post you linked which indicates PJ attends klan rallies or militia meetings. Do you have problems reading? Quite fucking obviously. I think the problem may be specifically with my "style": I interject a lot of expletives, profane ones. (expletive: a word, phrase, etc. not needed for the sense but used to fill out a sentence or metrical line.) Since the expletives are not needed for the sense, they by definition are extraneous and block up the meaning from being as clearly understood as it could be. Hence, she can't fuckin' understand a goddamned thing I say! Plus, she gets off on being high-and-morally-mighty. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here's what I said in that link: Please tell us where that means that I myself am a bigot, or likely to be a member or sympathizer of the Ku Klux Klan. CITING the language that is used by SOME people and asking, cynically, if a group's suffering more than another group entitles the first group to use racial slurs against the second. Yeah, the post is "very very telling." To people who, like you, don't know how to fucking read the meaning in it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh I feel so honored that the great PJ would take time out of his life of correcting peoples spelling and clan rallies to respond.. I am so honored. I'm not Scottish. Oops, there I go correcting your spelling again! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Actually, I don't know. I have to admit that I don't know who Raoul Duke is, or what he's known for. Is he a drug-use advocate or something? I don't know as Carl Sagan has some connection to recreational drug abuse that would connect use of a quote by him with the notion that you smoke pot to get high... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because if we had it, there wouldn't be so fucking many crazy people running around. I think that murdering five OF HER OWN children is a demonstration of how far to her core her insanity went. It wasn't a beating. It wasn't destruction of property. It wasn't even (for christ's sake) "just" mutilation! She fucking DROWNED THEM BY HER OWN HAND, ONE BY ONE. She didn't even do two and then say, "Holy shit, what have I done?!" and then stop. She did ALL FIVE. I am just really really skeptical that "that crazy" can be cured. We have professional psychologists tinker with people's minds when those minds are FAR LESS bad-off, with very limited success. To suggest that murderous psychosis is "curable" when fuckin' kleptomania is not even able to be cured with swift certainty is rather like saying you're a mechanic who can't change oil and get it right every time but you can rebuild a transmission that's seized and burnt out with no problem, reliably. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Didn't the Taliban destroy centuries-old stone carvings of Buddha? WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THEIR GOD OR THEIR PROPHET?! THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE [I]ELSE'S[/I] RELIGION OR GOD, OR WHETHER THEY GIVE OFFENSE TO THEM. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No "possibly" about it. If you murder someone and you are not guilty of murder because you are "insane," given that we cannot "cure" an insane mind, you bet your ass it MUST be "for the rest of your life." Those who take lives (criminally) do not deserve to live. It is that simple. But if you are spared execution because you are mentally ill, then the only fair thing is to deny you freedom for the rest of your life. "We can't kill you? Fine. We're gonna confine you." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"