• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Man buys Hummer, Eco-terrorists wreck it

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Let us take an imaginary journey to a place called...reality. Here's why your bloodthirsty shoot to kill mentality is stupid.

Jack and Jane are married for many years. They have 2 children and Jack is a terrific father, contributes to his church, and has lots of friends. Jane is having an affair with Robert. Jack finds out what car Robert drives, and in an insanely jealous rage decides he's going to smash it up. But Jack didn't know Robert's neighbor has the same car. Jack accidentally smashes up the neighbor's car. The neighbor comes out of his house, shoots and kills Jack.

In your view, Jack got was coming to him because he was a criminal, not an angry, jealous husband who sought petty revenge. Jack forfeited his right to life because he chose to damage someone's property. Jack was not a deranged rapist, burglar or killer. Just a guy who got carried away with his emotions and made a bad choice. This is the sort of thing that happens in a triggerhappy land. Mostly good people I making the occasional bad choice. In your world, his choice deserves the death penalty.

You are so eager for someone to damage your material possession so that you can experience killing someone that it borders on the psychopathic. Seek help.
By your logic, as long as I am enraged, jealous, and angry, or otherwise have some pathetic emotional excuse, but I'm not otherwise a career criminal, it's ok for me to break the law and violate another persons property rights and free will.

I don't care what personal problems the guy has, it should never involve or cause harm or loss to an innocent third party. And even if he did get the right car, he would still be in the wrong. The wife may be a total cheating bitch, but it's her free will to cheat and be a hoe, like it or not. You cannot force someone to stay with someone, and there is no law or Constitutional mandate to force someone to live their life the way you want them to etc.

Why the hell would I be eager for someone to damage my possessions, and where did I ever mention that? I'd rather not go through the trouble in the first place. But I do assure you that in a conflict between myself, an upstanding citizen, and a criminal with intent of ill will to others, the criminal will not have anything to gain from me in ANY outcome.

I'd rather live in a world where I could leave my car unlocked or drop a $20 bill on the ground and find it in lost and found than your delusional trigger happy world.

Try again, because you suck at profiling.

Edit for your edit: using force to stop or prevent a crime on your property in the act is a whole different situation than hunting someone down in revenge after the fact. The former is in accordance with law using the rights and powers belonging to property owning citizens, the latter is taking the law into your own hands once you leave your property to pursue someone.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Jack was not a deranged rapist, burglar or killer. Just a guy who got carried away with his emotions and made a bad choice. .
Uh, killers, rapists and burglars are almost always "regular guys" who get "carried away" with their "emotions."

It cracks me up when people say, "Well if everyone has guns, criminals will kill you just as soon as rob you!" Come on people, they're robbers. They already might kill you. You might as well give yourself the chance to fight back.

If anyone wants to try and kill me before they rob me, they're more than willing to try. I've shot two armed criminals in my life. I should start painting pictures of them on the side of one of my gun safes, a la WW2 fighter pilot. :D
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Let us take an imaginary journey to a place called...reality. Here's why your bloodthirsty shoot to kill mentality is stupid.

Jack and Jane are married for many years. They have 2 children and Jack is a terrific father, contributes to his church, and has lots of friends. Jane is having an affair with Robert. Jack finds out what car Robert drives, and in an insanely jealous rage decides he's going to smash it up. But Jack didn't know Robert's neighbor has the same car. Jack accidentally smashes up the neighbor's car. The neighbor comes out of his house, shoots and kills Jack.

In your view, Jack got was coming to him because he was a criminal, not an angry, jealous husband who sought petty revenge. Jack forfeited his right to life because he chose to damage someone's property. Jack was not a deranged rapist, burglar or killer. Just a guy who got carried away with his emotions and made a bad choice. This is the sort of thing that happens in a triggerhappy land. Mostly good people I making the occasional bad choice. In your world, his choice deserves the death penalty.

You are so eager for someone to damage your material possession so that you can experience killing someone that it borders on the psychopathic. Seek help.
By your logic, as long as I am enraged, jealous, and angry, or otherwise have some pathetic emotional excuse, but I'm not otherwise a career criminal, it's ok for me to break the law and violate another persons property rights and free will.
I don't care what personal problems the guy has, it should never involve or cause harm or loss to an innocent third party. And even if he did get the right car, he would still be in the wrong. The wife may be a total cheating bitch, but it's her free will to cheat and be a hoe, like it or not. You cannot force someone to stay with someone, and there is no law or Constitutional mandate to force someone to live their life the way you want them to etc.

Why the hell would I be eager for someone to damage my possessions, and where did I ever mention that? I'd rather not go through the trouble in the first place. But I do assure you that in a conflict between myself, an upstanding citizen, and a criminal with intent of ill will to others, the criminal will not have anything to gain from me in ANY outcome.

I'd rather live in a world where I could leave my car unlocked or drop a $20 bill on the ground and find it in lost and found than your delusional trigger happy world.

Try again, because you suck at profiling.

Edit for your edit: using force to stop or prevent a crime on your property in the act is a whole different situation than hunting someone down in revenge after the fact. The former is in accordance with law using the rights and powers belonging to property owning citizens, the latter is taking the law into your own hands once you leave your property to pursue someone.
Your reading comprehension skills are really poor. Previously I posted about who has less regard for human life, you or the me (the "NY socialists"), and you responded as if I'd challenged whether you or a killer criminal were at issue.

Now you state that somewhere I said that Jack's criminal behavior was "ok" because he was upset. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I merely stated that such a person doesn't deserve to die, a likely outcome under your laws. If you feel crimes against property are equivalent to crimes against people, and all such crimes deserve death, let us pray you never wander into someone else's property by mistake. In my opinion, you don't deserve to be killed for it, but I should keep my opinion to myself.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Your reading comprehension skills are really poor. Previously I posted about who has less regard for human life, you or the me (the "NY socialists"), and you responded as if I'd challenged whether you or a killer criminal were at issue.

Now you state that somewhere I said that Jack's criminal behavior was "ok" because he was upset. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I merely stated that such a person doesn't deserve to die, a likely outcome under your laws. If you feel crimes against property are equivalent to crimes against people, and all such crimes deserve death, let us pray you never wander into someone else's property by mistake. In my opinion, you don't deserve to be killed for it, but I should keep my opinion to myself.
There are no circumstances I can think of when I would kill someone JUST to save property. As in, I wake up, see some hood running out my front door with my DVD player. The law says I can pop him, but I'm not going to.

But I can't fault anyone who would. Someone else might not be able to afford a new DVD player.

What if someone was stealing a very valuable gold and jewel encrusted urn that happened to contain your mothers ashes?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Jack was not a deranged rapist, burglar or killer. Just a guy who got carried away with his emotions and made a bad choice. .
Uh, killers, rapists and burglars are almost always "regular guys" who get "carried away" with their "emotions."

It cracks me up when people say, "Well if everyone has guns, criminals will kill you just as soon as rob you!" Come on people, they're robbers. They already might kill you. You might as well give yourself the chance to fight back.

If anyone wants to try and kill me before they rob me, they're more than willing to try. I've shot two armed criminals in my life. I should start painting pictures of them on the side of one of my gun safes, a la WW2 fighter pilot. :D
Come on man, your earlier posts were well reasoned, no need to weaken your arguments with nonsense like this. Go to a prison and ask all the first time offenders to raise their hands. It'll be a minority. Most killers have long rap sheets. And who becomes a burglar because he's emotional?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Your reading comprehension skills are really poor. Previously I posted about who has less regard for human life, you or the me (the "NY socialists"), and you responded as if I'd challenged whether you or a killer criminal were at issue.

Now you state that somewhere I said that Jack's criminal behavior was "ok" because he was upset. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I merely stated that such a person doesn't deserve to die, a likely outcome under your laws. If you feel crimes against property are equivalent to crimes against people, and all such crimes deserve death, let us pray you never wander into someone else's property by mistake. In my opinion, you don't deserve to be killed for it, but I should keep my opinion to myself.
There are no circumstances I can think of when I would kill someone JUST to save property. As in, I wake up, see some hood running out my front door with my DVD player. The law says I can pop him, but I'm not going to.

But I can't fault anyone who would. Someone else might not be able to afford a new DVD player.

What if someone was stealing a very valuable gold and jewel encrusted urn that happened to contain your mothers ashes?


Good question. What would your mother want you to do? (I'm hesitant to ask...)
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I love it when people find out about Texas deadly force laws :)

Seriously if you guys are done playing "What if?"

Go read a bit on this website, and then shudder when you realize we nearly have a defacto national concealed carry law in the US with the reciprocity agreements between the states.

www.packing.org

States that honor Texas CCW:

# Alaska

# Arizona

# Arkansas

# Colorado

# Delaware

# Florida

# Georgia

# Idaho

# Indiana

# Kentucky

# Louisiana

# Michigan

# Mississippi

# Missouri

# Montana

# New Mexico

# North Carolina

# North Dakota

# Oklahoma

# Pennsylvania

# South Carolina

# South Dakota

# Tennessee

# Utah

# Vermont

# Virginia

# Wyoming
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,299
511
126
So when are they going after hollywood (in the same manner as this man) who promoted the Hummer H2 as Autobot Ratchet, oh thats right they can't be touched whether it is promoting cigarettes, SUVs, or other things considered detrimental to society.;)

To help dealers leverage GM's starring role in "Transformers," the company rolled out the Transform Your Ride Sale in late June. This national sales effort-supported by television spots showcasing 12 different GM vehicles-employed special animated transformation techniques and proprietary sound effects from the film. Additional campaign elements included print, radio, point-of-sale materials and digital communications, and all aspects delivered one consistent theme: "Need a new car or truck? Get to Chevy, Buick, Pontiac or GMC and transform your ride!"
Quoted from page 11, EDGE magazine july 2007 edition, you can ask for it at your local GM dealer.

On one hand we tell people cigarettes are bad for your health, SUV's are bad for the environment, etc. and then we undo it all through the media and advertising, yet the same people in my opinion who condemn the man with the Hummer are usually the greatest defenders of this dichotomy.

No wonder this country is so confused.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I love it when people find out about Texas deadly force laws :)

Seriously if you guys are done playing "What if?"

Go read a bit on this website, and then shudder when you realize we nearly have a defacto national concealed carry law in the US with the reciprocity agreements between the states.

www.packing.org

States that honor Texas CCW:

# Alaska

# Arizona

# Arkansas

# Colorado

# Delaware

# Florida

# Georgia

# Idaho

# Indiana

# Kentucky

# Louisiana

# Michigan

# Mississippi

# Missouri

# Montana

# New Mexico

# North Carolina

# North Dakota

# Oklahoma

# Pennsylvania

# South Carolina

# South Dakota

# Tennessee

# Utah

# Vermont

# Virginia

# Wyoming
If you get a Texas, Utah, and Florida CHL, it covers you in almost every single shall issue state. Next best thing to having a badge. ;)
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
These vandals only pick on people who they think won't harm them in return. Why aren't eco-terrorists scratching up some pimped up rides in Compton? Because doing so has real consequences? These people are no different than those who pick on the weak because they can because they know that the repercussions aren't very severe.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
I don't condone the act of violence, but is there really any legitimate reason for a civilian to drive a Hummer?
Total, complete lack of taste and refinement?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
You hypocrits cannot have it both ways. If you "don't condone" it but your sympathy is low or he reaped what he sowed, then yeah part of you does condone it. Fess up, man up, and admit that you think it was somewhat right.

When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!

Anyway, I think it was stupid. I hope the guy puts up a sign saying that he just paid somebody to dump 200 gallons of oil on some seal pups, just for fun :D
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I'm interested as hell in what kind of cars those who condone the behavior or have little sympathy for him drive personally.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You hypocrits cannot have it both ways. If you "don't condone" it but your sympathy is low or he reaped what he sowed, then yeah part of you does condone it. Fess up, man up, and admit that you think it was somewhat right.

When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!

Anyway, I think it was stupid. I hope the guy puts up a sign saying that he just paid somebody to dump 200 gallons of oil on some seal pups, just for fun :D
I just don't understand why you would object to those people since you are so much like them. And talk about being a hypocrite, why aren't you using a bat now. Your morality, at least you do fess, is as shallow as your fear.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,277
3,807
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh look the religious econutz are trying to force their views on people again through the use of force.

Guy should repair it, put a bomb under it and when these douchebags show up again detonate.
Or keep the car and sniper them and their families.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You hypocrits cannot have it both ways. If you "don't condone" it but your sympathy is low or he reaped what he sowed, then yeah part of you does condone it. Fess up, man up, and admit that you think it was somewhat right.

When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!

Anyway, I think it was stupid. I hope the guy puts up a sign saying that he just paid somebody to dump 200 gallons of oil on some seal pups, just for fun :D
I just don't understand why you would object to those people since you are so much like them. And talk about being a hypocrite, why aren't you using a bat now. Your morality, at least you do fess, is as shallow as your fear.
I decree that a consistent theme in your posts is that you decry decriers as being the same as those they decry. And for one who touts his sarcasm, you do not see it in others, merely literals.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You hypocrits cannot have it both ways. If you "don't condone" it but your sympathy is low or he reaped what he sowed, then yeah part of you does condone it. Fess up, man up, and admit that you think it was somewhat right.

When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!

Anyway, I think it was stupid. I hope the guy puts up a sign saying that he just paid somebody to dump 200 gallons of oil on some seal pups, just for fun :D
I just don't understand why you would object to those people since you are so much like them. And talk about being a hypocrite, why aren't you using a bat now. Your morality, at least you do fess, is as shallow as your fear.
I decree that a consistent theme in your posts is that you decry decriers as being the same as those they decry. And for one who touts his sarcasm, you do not see it in others, merely literals.
It is a consistent fact of human psychology, one you may not be aware of from insufficient honest self examination, but people always and especially decry that and particularly that which most reflects truths about themselves they most powerfully deny.

As to the sentence, "And for one who touts his sarcasm, you do not see it in others, merely literals.", I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. I know the works buy as far as I can see the sentence itself is meaningless, untranslatable, or excessively arcane. Would you mind restating your point in different words?

Ah now I get it, sort of a word poem. Well I hardly would use the word tout in relation to my sarcasm. I ams what I ams.

I can certainly miss when others are being sarcastic. Why would I not? Do you find it a crime to mistake another's intention? But were you being sarcastic in the point that I addressed. I was not referring to the seal part of your post at all, but the part about bats:

"When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!"

I took that as a consistent part of your belief and addressed that. Am I wrong?

I see a world in which men in particular are insane in the area of mistaken notions of masculinity, a condition often described an Macho Man. Men suffer profoundly from this illness and it manifests everywhere, with each male trying to out do the other is how tough he can appear. This disease got us into Iraq and is killing humanity slow and sure. Men, in particular, have been told they must not feel, they must not cry or morn for themselves and so they can't heal.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
0
Originally posted by: glutenberg
These vandals only pick on people who they think won't harm them in return. Why aren't eco-terrorists scratching up some pimped up rides in Compton? Because doing so has real consequences? These people are no different than those who pick on the weak because they can because they know that the repercussions aren't very severe.
:thumbsup:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You hypocrits cannot have it both ways. If you "don't condone" it but your sympathy is low or he reaped what he sowed, then yeah part of you does condone it. Fess up, man up, and admit that you think it was somewhat right.

When the world collapses and we're all battling for our food, at least the guys with the bats will have the brains to scramble over your equivocating butts!

Anyway, I think it was stupid. I hope the guy puts up a sign saying that he just paid somebody to dump 200 gallons of oil on some seal pups, just for fun :D
You're right, nuance is for elitists. Of course, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
 

Taggerd

Senior member
Jun 16, 2005
558
0
76
let them vandale my truck 2005 frightliner centry class i get about 6 mpg.
sticker price new 125,000 current value and amout owed 64,000
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Definition of an idiot: Someone who buys a $38,000 car and parks it on the street.
If you can afford a $38,000 vehicle you can afford to rent a garage to keep it in.
What other things do you own worth tens of thousands of dollars do you leave out on the street? You are asking for trouble.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,942
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Definition of an idiot: Someone who buys a $38,000 car and parks it on the street.
If you can afford a $38,000 vehicle you can afford to rent a garage to keep it in.
What other things do you own worth tens of thousands of dollars do you leave out on the street? You are asking for trouble.
Should I buy a house to house my house?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: marincounty
Definition of an idiot: Someone who buys a $38,000 car and parks it on the street.
If you can afford a $38,000 vehicle you can afford to rent a garage to keep it in.
What other things do you own worth tens of thousands of dollars do you leave out on the street? You are asking for trouble.
Should I buy a house to house my house?
Is your house left unattended on public property?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,121
506
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: marincounty
Definition of an idiot: Someone who buys a $38,000 car and parks it on the street.
If you can afford a $38,000 vehicle you can afford to rent a garage to keep it in.
What other things do you own worth tens of thousands of dollars do you leave out on the street? You are asking for trouble.
Should I buy a house to house my house?
Is your house left unattended on public property?
Ummmm.....he parked his car in front of his house, I don't think that the vandals would suddenly stop at the property line because they were concerned about trespassing on to private property....

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY