Ann Coulter's final solution the Occupy problem: Shoot them

[cybrsage]

Jokes are the refuge of those who lack wit.

So THAT is why you tell jokes. You are good at it, though, you should keep it up. Play to your strenghts, I alwasy say.

I will stop, you make it too easy. I am starting to feel bad.

 

[shira]

So THAT is why you tell jokes. You are good at it, though, you should keep it up. Play to your strenghts, I alwasy say.

I will stop, you make it too easy. I am starting to feel bad.

How interesting that you omitted the second half of my post. It MUST be easy for you when you duel with straw men.

 

[dank69]

Murder is a subset of the set of killing.

You now have your answer.

You don't want to commit to an answer?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Not a problem. Keep your fingers in your ears and pretend that posting racial slurs are not obscenities. It probably helps you continue to tell yourself you are a good person.

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are the one calling for censorship here. You're not good at arguing, hence the fact that you keep ignoring what I've posted and proclaiming "victory" without explaining why in any way.

Seriously, if you're not going to try to contribute to this board by doing anything more than bickering, stop posting, much less posting 30-40 times per day. EDIT: He is actually posting more than 59 times per day! Holy buckets - that is remarkable to me. Obviously one can't post with care and craft while maintaining that kind of volume.

 

[dank69]

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are the one calling for censorship here. You're not good at arguing, hence the fact that you keep ignoring what I've posted and proclaiming "victory" without explaining why in any way.

Seriously, if you're not going to try to contribute to this board by doing anything more than bickering, stop posting, much less posting 30-40 times per day.

Seconded. Cybrsage, get your ADHD under control please.

 

[cybrsage]

You don't want to commit to an answer?

I did, you just did not understand your own question.

I will explain in more detail. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Execution is killing, but not murder.

Your question, therefor, is nonsensical.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You are the one calling for censorship here. You're not good at arguing, hence the fact that you keep ignoring what I've posted and proclaiming "victory" without explaining why in any way.

You are calling for censorship as well. We disagree on the level of censorship. You can drop the holier than though mindset you just snatched.

You claim something that is not true, I showed you that you were wrong, you pretend what I showed is not true and continued saying what was shown to be wrong. That is pretty much the same as putting your fingers in your ears and going naa naa naa I am not listening to you.

For you to continue to say you are correct, you need to show that the words used do not mean what their definitions say they mean. Should be simple if you are correct, eh?

Seriously, if you're not going to try to contribute to this board by doing anything more than bickering, stop posting, much less posting 30-40 times per day. EDIT: He is actually posting more than 59 times per day! Holy buckets - that is remarkable to me. Obviously one can't post with care and craft while maintaining that kind of volume.

Says the man who is currently bickering...did you know the pot is black?

If you have three people to answer in one thread, that is three posts in a matter of minutes. I know you are not stupid, so you surely have to understand this.

If you have someone who is actively watching a thread, and you and that person have a discussion for several minutes, you can have a great many posts.

If you know how to type, you can post a lot of words in far less time than those who do not know how to type. As an easy to understand example, a person who types 50 wpm can type 10 times as much information in the same amount of time as someone who types 5 wpm.

Surely you were able to think of these things on your own...but that would not have allowed you to post your last paragraph without being dishonest with yourself, would it?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I did, you just did not understand your own question.

I will explain in more detail. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Execution is killing, but not murder.

Your question, therefor, is nonsensical.

Why is execution not murder?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You are calling for censorship as well. We disagree on the level of censorship. You can drop the holier than though mindset you just snatched.

You claim something that is not true, I showed you that you were wrong, you pretend what I showed is not true and continued saying what was shown to be wrong. That is pretty much the same as putting your fingers in your ears and going naa naa naa I am not listening to you.

For you to continue to say you are correct, you need to show that the words used do not mean what their definitions say they mean. Should be simple if you are correct, eh?

Says the man who is currently bickering...did you know the pot is black?

If you have three people to answer in one thread, that is three posts in a matter of minutes. I know you are not stupid, so you surely have to understand this.

If you have someone who is actively watching a thread, and you and that person have a discussion for several minutes, you can have a great many posts.

If you know how to type, you can post a lot of words in far less time than those who do not know how to type. As an easy to understand example, a person who types 50 wpm can type 10 times as much information in the same amount of time as someone who types 5 wpm.

Surely you were able to think of these things on your own...but that would not have allowed you to post your last paragraph without being dishonest with yourself, would it?

This is just more of the same. You claim I am holier than thou, yet you are the one reporting people for posts. You claim I have ignored your (completely glib and opaque) arguments, yet you refuse to explain what they are. You claim that I am ignoring what you're saying, but you ignore everything I say, and refuse to explain what you're talking about when I have repeatedly said I don't understand your arguments.

The bottom line is this: In my view, Ann Coulter being called the C word just represents a fair and measured response to her own hate speech (and, as one of her fans has posted in this very thread, is exactly the reaction she is going for). I don't find it offensive, nor do I agree that using profanity, in and of itself, reflects bad breeding or a faulty intellect. Clearly you do, and despite having been here for less than 3 weeks, you think it merits a report to the moderators. I think that is stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. My own opinion is that the moderators chose to eliminate the profanity filter here for a reason, and probably don't care what a brand-new member thinks, but I am not a mod and don't pretend to speak for them.

I do think racist comments are offensive and support moderators taking action to prohibit them. Racism is an invidious and harmful force in our culture, and racist posts are out of bounds from my perspective because they reflect prejudice and ignorance that should be rooted out and eliminated where possible. I am not calling for them to be made illegal - just to be barred from the sort of civilized discussion which is meant to take place here. I don't care whether they satisfy your definition of "profanity," nor do I care what an online dictionary thinks.

Seriously, if all you want to do here is bicker (and, worse yet, bicker through childish "nyah nyah - I proved you wrong 35 posts ago" tactics), I urge you to take your show on the road. I have been posting on political matters since before there was a separate P&N forum (which was added in the 2003-2004 timeframe). I have seen dozens of trolls and prolific-but-vapid posters like you come and go during that time. I would predict that within a few months you will either tire of posting or get yourself banned. I really have no problem with you posting here, but I do have a problem with your adding nothing of value.

 

[cybrsage]

This is just more of the same. You claim I am holier than thou, yet you are the one reporting people for posts.

It is no different than reporting a little league baseball player who you happen to know is too old to play.

You claim I have ignored your (completely glib and opaque) arguments, yet you refuse to explain what they are. You claim that I am ignoring what you're saying, but you ignore everything I say, and refuse to explain what you're talking about when I have repeatedly said I don't understand your arguments.

Sorry about the bad link before, but here it is proper:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32655935&postcount=146

I DID summarize, though, for ease of comprehension. I will restate it again:

You claim racism is not profanity. I showed that it is. You can find it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32655935&postcount=146 (note, link corrected)


But the short form is:

The first two definitions of profanity have to do with religion, which this is not. The third is then applicable, which defines profanity as obscenity. Obsenity is something offensive to morality or decency.


So unless you are trying to say that racist slurs are not offensive to morality or decency, then you have to agree that racialist slurs are profanity.

The bottom line is this: In my view, Ann Coulter being called the C word just represents a fair and measured response to her own hate speech (and, as one of her fans has posted in this very thread, is exactly the reaction she is going for).

Your position is that one wrong act allows for another wrong act?

I don't find it offensive, nor do I agree that using profanity, in and of itself, reflects bad breeding or a faulty intellect.

Clearly you do, and despite having been here for less than 3 weeks, you think it merits a report to the moderators. I think that is stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. My own opinion is that the moderators chose to eliminate the profanity filter here for a reason, and probably don't care what a brand-new member thinks, but I am not a mod and don't pretend to speak for them.

Interesting use of logical fallacies.

I do think racist comments are offensive and support moderators taking action to prohibit them.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. What you PERSONALLY find offensive should be banned and stopped for everyone (regardless of if that person finds the item offensive), but what you find to not be offensive should be allowed (regardless of if others find the item offensive).

Pretty shallow and self centered view.

Racism is an invidious and harmful force in our culture, and racist posts are out of bounds from my perspective because they reflect prejudice and ignorance that should be rooted out and eliminated where possible. I am not calling for them to be made illegal - just to be barred from the sort of civilized discussion which is meant to take place here.

Which is the same reason for not calling a woman a wise and beautiful woman.

I don't care whether they satisfy your definition of "profanity," nor do I care what an online dictionary thinks.

So you DO know what I am talking about. Why do you keep going on and on, acting like you have no clue what I am talking about?

Basically, you just said "I do not care what words mean, their meaning is entirely made up by me at my personal whim and desire." Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but words actually do have meanings, and the dictionary is the place to obtain said meanings. Your personal desire for words to mean something other than what they actual mean is silly and irrelevant to the actual meaning.

Seriously, if all you want to do here is bicker (and, worse yet, bicker through childish "nyah nyah - I proved you wrong 35 posts ago" tactics), I urge you to take your show on the road.

When you continue to pretend words have random meaning you make up on the spot, I will continue to show you that you are wrong about that. Want to not be shown you are wrong, stop making up your own personal meanings for words. Pretty simple, eh? Another option is to simply admit you did not know the actual meaning and that you are wrong.

I have been posting on political matters since before there was a separate P&N forum (which was added in the 2003-2004 timeframe). I have seen dozens of trolls and prolific-but-vapid posters like you come and go during that time. I would predict that within a few months you will either tire of posting or get yourself banned. I really have no problem with you posting here, but I do have a problem with your adding nothing of value.

Have you been making up your own definition of words this entire time and only now been called out on it? Is that why you are so mad?

 

[cybrsage]

Why is execution not murder?

Basically, murder is an unlawful killing. Capital punishment (which is what I mean by execution, as opposed to a type of assination), is a lawful killing.

Same thing applies to soldier during warfare. Soldiers do not murder enemy soldiers during war, they kill them.

Murder is a subset of killing, with the main delineator being that it is unlawful.

 

[dank69]

I did, you just did not understand your own question.

I will explain in more detail. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Execution is killing, but not murder.

Your question, therefor, is nonsensical.

I didn't ask you if murder is the same as killing. I asked where you stand on capital punishment. Don't try to figure out why I am asking a question, because you'll just look foolish. Just answer the question as it is stated, or avoid answering, if that is your thing.

 

[cybrsage]

I didn't ask you if murder is the same as killing. I asked where you stand on capital punishment.

Capital punishment is the only 100% successful punishment in preventing repeat offenders. No other punishment can assure this.

I support capital punishment for those crimes which deserve it, of which murder is one.

 

[werepossum]

Capital punishment is the only 100% successful punishment in preventing repeat offenders. No other punishment can assure this.

I support capital punishment for those crimes which deserve it, of which murder is one.

This is true - as long as you convict the actual offender, anyway.

 

[davmat787]

This is true - as long as you convict the actual offender, anyway.

And if you convict the wrong offender and sentence to death, than you are really no better than the real murderer in the first place. This is why I am against capital punishment, too many innocent have been put to death. I would probably feel different if the system was infallible, but it is not.

 

[werepossum]

And if you convict the wrong offender and sentence to death, than you are really no better than the real murderer in the first place. This is why I am against capital punishment, too many innocent have been put to death. I would probably feel different if the system was infallible, but it is not.

I don't agree that we're no better than the murderer if we accidentally execute the wrong person, since we did so in good faith. The only correlation would be if the murderer intended to murder X, but screwed up and murdered Y instead.

I think there are some people so loathsome that they do not deserve to continue living. But certainly we need to be ever vigilant to avoid executing innocents.

 

[JSt0rm]

And if you convict the wrong offender and sentence to death, than you are really no better than the real murderer in the first place. This is why I am against capital punishment, too many innocent have been put to death. I would probably feel different if the system was infallible, but it is not.

I agree with this 100%

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't agree that we're no better than the murderer if we accidentally execute the wrong person, since we did so in good faith. The only correlation would be if the murderer intended to murder X, but screwed up and murdered Y instead.

I think there are some people so loathsome that they do not deserve to continue living. But certainly we need to be ever vigilant to avoid executing innocents.

The death of one innocent person at the hands of the government should be unacceptable to the point that we do away with the death penalty.

I am always surprised when I see small government conservatives support something like the government killing of civilians. Talk about a intrusive government.

 

[davmat787]

I don't agree that we're no better than the murderer if we accidentally execute the wrong person, since we did so in good faith. The only correlation would be if the murderer intended to murder X, but screwed up and murdered Y instead.

I think there are some people so loathsome that they do not deserve to continue living. But certainly we need to be ever vigilant to avoid executing innocents.

But what if we continue capital punishment, knowing innocent have been wrongly executed in the past? Then what does that make us? Again, I am not opposed to capital punishment in principle, just that I can't stomach the chance that one could be innocent and yet put to death, even if it is relatively rare.

edit: we had a thread recently just on this topic, not sure how we got from Ann Coulter to here, lol. Anyway, don't want to derail further, I've said my piece.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't agree that we're no better than the murderer if we accidentally execute the wrong person, since we did so in good faith. The only correlation would be if the murderer intended to murder X, but screwed up and murdered Y instead.

I think there are some people so loathsome that they do not deserve to continue living. But certainly we need to be ever vigilant to avoid executing innocents.

What about situations where there is prosecutorial misconduct? Not even the proverbial frame-up, but the typical kinds of things that go on, like not handing over exculpatory evidence to the defense? Or something like that Texas arson-murder case where the prosecution's expert analysis is totally shredded by a more credible expert but the authorities there allow the man to be executed anyway.

These are not just problems with particular cases. A certain amount of this sort of thing is inevitable. The legal system is adversarial, meaning that both sides play to win, not for truth. And things like gubernatorial pardons are directly affected by electoral politics. These are systemic problems. I don't think we should be administering irreversible punishments under those conditions.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't agree that we're no better than the murderer if we accidentally execute the wrong person, since we did so in good faith. The only correlation would be if the murderer intended to murder X, but screwed up and murdered Y instead.

I think there are some people so loathsome that they do not deserve to continue living. But certainly we need to be ever vigilant to avoid executing innocents.

Of course, there are also situations where the inertia of the death penalty process, and political pressures, make executions occur despite clear evidence of innocence (a la Cameron Willingham). At some point the state can and sometimes does cease acting in good faith.

 

[JSt0rm]

Of course, there are also situations where the inertia of the death penalty process, and political pressures, make executions occur despite clear evidence of innocence (a la Cameron Willingham). At some point the state can and sometimes does cease acting in good faith.

And yet small government conservatives are ok with the government killing people. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[davmat787]

Okay, I lied. I will add one more point of data.

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php

 

[davmat787]

And yet small government conservatives are ok with the government killing people. The hypocrisy is amazing.

Now, now, lets not make sweeping generalizations. I was just about to post that I thought it was cool that while you and I disagree on many things, and werepossum and I agree on many things, in this instance the opposite was the case, and done in a civil manner for once.

 

[JSt0rm]

Now, now, lets not make sweeping generalizations. I was just about to post that I thought it was cool that while you and I disagree on many things, and werepossum and I agree on many things, in this instance the opposite was the case, and done in a civil manner for once.

You still can

However it doesnt change the fact that I find it hypocritical one would demand small government and on the flip support government killing of civilians (as long as only a few innocents get killed).