Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Bullying Until recently, Bullying has been identified as a major concern in our Society.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2012, 08:10 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


also it happened in a cinema showing a suspenseful movie. people are affected by their environment which in this case was primed to make people anxious and a bit on edge. if the same shooter turned up at a martial arts academy and tried the same thing the results may have been very different and the author would be singing the virtues of proactive americans.
hot dragon is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm' timestamp='1344826908' post='420509

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508']

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


I said most people, historically, will run, but I also said the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in the wolves favor. What do think about that?

[/quote]



is that happening?



when the wolves are armed with assault rifles even the sheepdogs are forced to run. if the guy had gone nuts with a samurai sword there would have been a few deaths and most people would have run, but i bet more would have had the courage to take a stand. there isnt much you can to against an assault rifle. thats the point of assault rifles.
hot dragon is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 08:17 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm' timestamp='1344826908' post='420509

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508']

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


I said most people, historically, will run, but I also said the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in the wolves favor. What do think about that?

[/quote]I'm not sure how one could say for certain that it is tipping in the wolves favor. We've always had criminals around, and there are plenty of accounts in which an average citizen had put their own life at risk to help someone else. Do you really think the criminals are becoming more numerous than people who are willing to help? We hear about criminals because they have committed crimes, but we may not hear about everyone in a given situation who had been a "sheepherder."
Bookworm is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 08:55 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1344827173' post='420510

[quote name='Bookworm' timestamp='1344826908' post='420509']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508']

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


I said most people, historically, will run, but I also said the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in the wolves favor. What do think about that?

[/quote]



is that happening?



when the wolves are armed with assault rifles even the sheepdogs are forced to run. if the guy had gone nuts with a samurai sword there would have been a few deaths and most people would have run, but i bet more would have had the courage to take a stand. there isnt much you can to against an assault rifle. thats the point of assault rifles.

[/quote]



Some would say, that makes a very good point for a sheepdog to carry a weapon.



Did you read the full article? The writer makes a very good point that a person with a knife or sword is more difficult to stop than a person armed with, particularly, a rifle.
imaginethat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 08:58 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1344827173' post='420510

[quote name='Bookworm' timestamp='1344826908' post='420509']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508']

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


I said most people, historically, will run, but I also said the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in the wolves favor. What do think about that?

[/quote]I'm not sure how one could say for certain that it is tipping in the wolves favor. We've always had criminals around, and there are plenty of accounts in which an average citizen had put their own life at risk to help someone else. Do you really think the criminals are becoming more numerous than people who are willing to help? We hear about criminals because they have committed crimes, but we may not hear about everyone in a given situation who had been a "sheepherder."

[/quote]



Yes, I really do think the criminals are becoming more numerous than people willing to help.



Just my opinion.



If you didn't, I suggest your reading the article I linked.
imaginethat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 09:01 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm' timestamp='1344826908' post='420509

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508']

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?
No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.


also it happened in a cinema showing a suspenseful movie. people are affected by their environment which in this case was primed to make people anxious and a bit on edge. if the same shooter turned up at a martial arts academy and tried the same thing the results may have been very different and the author would be singing the virtues of proactive americans.

[/quote]



Yeah, but that didn't happen, and, the shooter didn't pick a martial arts academy. He picked a theater in a city where it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon. The Virginia Tech shooter picked a gun-free campus, meaning campus security was unarmed.



Do you see a pattern here?
imaginethat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 09:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posts: 227
The way I view it, this was an insane, sick man, and he we would've killed a lot of people one way or another in the end.



Also, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody in the theater fought back. According to the news reports, he had 3 insanely huge guns and was heavily armored. The only way somebody could've fought back is if they brought a military tank into the building.
Politicskid is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 09:49 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politicskid View Post
The way I view it, this was an insane, sick man, and he we would've killed a lot of people one way or another in the end.



Also, I'm pretty sure I know why nobody in the theater fought back. According to the news reports, he had 3 insanely huge guns and was heavily armored. The only way somebody could've fought back is if they brought a military tank into the building.


That's really wrong, and I suggest you read the rest of the article too. Several witnesses testified that he had to reload. And, he had on a gas mask. Vision is seriously impaired by a gas mask.



Please, read the entire article: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz23NYonUAe
imaginethat is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 10:05 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
the author is trying to make a point, that america is becoming a nation of passive sheep. but he is using a single event rather than looking at a pattern over several events. eye witness testimonies are notoriously innacurate, and most of his argument is eye witness accounts, witnessed who were just in a hideously traumatising situation, likely witnessed murders and may have barely survived their own, part of a panicky stampede, and then interviewed by a journalist looking for some sensationalist footage. this is hardly solid evidence. all he can say is that the witnesses to this event that the media chose to show on television didnt see anyone try to fight back. this is an out of focus snapshot of a bad moment, it cannot be extrapolated to the whole nation.



one could look at all the spree killings in the last 25 years, look at the forensic evidence, look at all the witness statements not just those that the media thought made a good story, look at the follow up statements not just the interviews done in the immediate aftermath, that might show a pattern of bystanders becoming more and more reluctant to step up and help. thats what it would take to come to the conclusion this author has made.



maybe american sheepdogs are dying out, or turning into wolves. the author might be right. but this article isnt enough to say for sure. to be fair, the author has presented his article as a question, not as an answer. he hasnt presented an answer.
hot dragon is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 10:10 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 57,649
If US citizens' Second Amendment right is ever compromised, or abrogated, the United States created by our Constitution will cease to exist.



Liberty is messy. Current gun laws make it possible for a whacko to purchase assault rifles and ammo. They also make it possible for law-abiding citizens to purchase assault rifles and ammo. And the government knows the citizenry is armed, and the military know that lightly armed opponents have arrested a superpower's ability to conclude a conflict.



On the other hand, the subtle enemy we face might have armed resistance in its plan. Armed resistance by US citizens would provide a rationale to severely restrict a citizen's unalienable rights., It's already happened with the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and Obama's "National Defense Authorization Act.



From an Aussie's point of view:



Quote:
It's been fun for the left in Australia to fixate on the Republican candidates for the American presidency. It's been fun to joke about their policy quirks and eccentricities. Fun to pronounce that nothing is scarier than the prospect of a Santorum or Romney administration. Yes, the Republican race has been a convenient distraction.
Quote:



Because it would not do to dwell on an uncomfortable, undeniable reality - Barack Obama, the left's man in the White House, who was supposed to restore America's standing in the world and end George Bush's assault on civil liberties, has been much worse than his Republican predecessor.



Obama has undermined more individual rights, and hoarded more presidential power, than Bush ever did. It's not that he has simply failed to roll back Bush's anti-terror excesses. Although that is true, as well. It's that Obama has trumped them. More than 10 years after the September 11 attacks, the White House is still amassing extra security powers. On December 31, Obama signed the National Defence Authorisation Act.



This act allows the military, without judicial authorisation, to arrest and indefinitely detain anybody within American borders.



This power is quite an increase. Under the Bush administration, the military could legally arrest and detain people only in other countries.



American citizens were protected by an 1878 act banning domestic military deployment. Obama no longer observes this legal nicety.



And Obama has claimed the right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a terrorist threat, at any time, according to nothing but his judgment, anywhere in the world. As a former CIA chief recently pointed out, while the President needs a court order to eavesdrop on Americans abroad, he does not need a court order to kill them.



There's more. George Bush's once-controversial covert surveillance program has dramatically expanded under Obama. The President's emergency powers have been boosted. An executive order Obama signed in March (number 13603) grants more to the president in an emergency than any order yet, allowing the government to take over all food, transport, water, energy and health resources and, if the President wants it, to reintroduce conscription.



Executive orders are used to bypass the usual checks and balances in Congress and the courts. As the Cato Institute's Jim Powell pointed out last month, there is nothing in order 13603 about protecting constitutional rights.



No wonder the director of the American Civil Liberties Union is ''disgusted'' by the Obama administration's record. Sure, Obama has withdrawn troops from Iraq. Mission accomplished, as they say. But, on the other hand, he has also personally pioneered an entirely new, more enduring form of global warfare. Drone attacks will remain long after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have faded into historical memory.



Because drone war is permanent war. It is limited by nothing more than the whims of the president. It is the first war run entirely by the CIA. It is conducted on the territory of countries to which America is not formally hostile. And it took until February for the administration to even admit the drone war existed.



George Bush's wars of liberation, right or wrong, had their precedents. Barack Obama's never-ending global bombing campaign by remote control is his innovation.



It's a fair bet that no administration will ever shut down the drone program. A competent intelligence agency can always find new threats for a bombing into the Stone Age. So if we simply apply the criteria the left used to condemn Bush as one of the worst presidents in history, there is no ambiguity. Obama is far worse again. Not that you would know about it.



Partisanship has a habit of excusing anything, with 77 per cent of those who describe themselves as left-wing Democrats wholeheartedly approving of Obama's drone program. Imagine if a Republican did the same thing. There would be anti-drone marches in Washington and candlelight vigils in Paris and Berlin. Now the left is more interested in complaining that Republicans are sceptical about climate change. They ignore, excuse, even - according to the polls - defend their President's abominable record on war and individual rights. Because he isn't a Republican.






We've come to the point where most people vote against the other party rather than for their party's candidate.



The lesser of two evils is still evil. Over time, evil tends to accumulate, becomes concentrated.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Tags
back, fight



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fight The Good Fight intangible child Political Talk 0 June 21st, 2010 08:48 PM
Californians fight back against attack on traditional marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 135 October 18th, 2008 04:49 AM
Stem cell research supporters fight back CNN Current Events 6 June 25th, 2007 05:59 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.