Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

jwhouk

jwhouk

Tress said:
I don't even think she's going to run. It's also very possible she's not going to have the health to run in 2016.
Click to expand...
As there is no "agree" option, I am stating this here. I don't think she's got the health to run for Pres. in '16, either.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
North_Ranger said:
Must be either a generational gap or a matter of cultural information... but I don't get that reference, GB.
Click to expand...
Might be something that only happened here. In the 1980s, in the US, hot pink was considered to be a very edgy, trendy color equally in use by both men and women. Don Johnson routinely rocked a pink shirt on Miami Vice.
 
North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Might be something that only happened here. In the 1980s, in the US, hot pink was considered to be a very edgy, trendy color equally in use by both men and women. Don Johnson routinely rocked a pink shirt on Miami Vice.
Click to expand...
Ah, then it was a bit of both. Y'see, the whole Don Johnson thing was before my time. And I don't think that really made a landing here.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
That's not what that article says. The article is saying that it's chic these days to pretend that whenever evil is committed it is by people without a thought process - that evil is directly equal to insanity. Hence, "senseless." But it isn't. As the article points out, both the holocaust and the Benghazi embassy attack were perpetrated by thinking, reasoning people who had their own motivations and knew the difference between right and wrong. We vehemently oppose their motivations, but they had them, and thus, were not "senseless."

When you start categorizing all your enemies as insane (or "senesless"), it's a cop out. It means you've stuck a label on them that says "we can't possibly figure out what is going through these people's heads, so let's not even try." There are cases where that's true - the connecticut school shooting was senseless. However, Nazi Germany was not senseless. And those who cannot (or are unwilling to) figure out the motivations and thought processes of their enemies are at a distinct disadvantage to them.[DOUBLEPOST=1359996382][/DOUBLEPOST]In other news: I forgot how to banana my beer.

 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

GasBandit said:
That's not what that article says. The article is saying that it's chic these days to pretend that whenever evil is committed it is by people without a thought process - that evil is directly equal to insanity. Hence, "senseless." But it isn't. As the article points out, both the holocaust and the Benghazi embassy attack were perpetrated by thinking, reasoning people who had their own motivations and knew the difference between right and wrong. We vehemently oppose their motivations, but they had them, and thus, were not "senseless."

When you start categorizing all your enemies as insane (or "senesless"), it's a cop out. It means you've stuck a label on them that says "we can't possibly figure out what is going through these people's heads, so let's not even try." There are cases where that's true - the connecticut school shooting was senseless. However, Nazi Germany was not senseless. And those who cannot (or are unwilling to) figure out the motivations and thought processes of their enemies are at a distinct disadvantage to them.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but surely you agree the article is poorly worded and doesn't clarify this point. It was a frustrating read because I could see her point but also easily see how anyone might read it as defense of nazism.

GasBandit said:
In other news: I forgot how to banana my beer.

Click to expand...
Seriously? How many times do we have to go over this.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Chad Sexington said:
I agree with this but surely you agree the article is poorly worded and doesn't clarify this point. It was a frustrating read because I could see her point but also easily see how anyone might read it as defense of nazism.
Click to expand...
Yes, the article is awkward in its phrasing, but I wouldn't say it is so bad that it comes off as defending National Socialism unless someone is already looking for a reason to ad hominem the author.[DOUBLEPOST=1360004650][/DOUBLEPOST]
Chad Sexington said:
Seriously? How many times do we have to go over this.
Click to expand...
OBAMA STEALS MY BANANA SKILLS, OKAY?!
 
Tress

Tress

"The ability to make illegal narcotics at home (especially something like meth) renders moot laws against selling narcotics."

Wouldn't you say that's a flawed argument? Why would a claim that the existence of 3D printers would make a law banning large magazines moot be more valid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top