Its murder when someone you disagree with kills someone in a way you disapprove of.
Ah, another acute case of moral relativism. Is that painful?
He would not have faced a trial if he hadn't decided that his brother's plan to slaughter some innocent people as a form of political expression was cool idea. You think that's just another world view, just a shoe on another foot. Yeah, everything's OK, because there's always someone who thinks it's OK, right?
No. Setting out to main and kill innocent people, including kids, for the sake of maiming and killing them, is not OK in any rational value system. Irrational value systems are objectively inferior. Acting out, murderously, in the service of an irrational value system, isn't just one more equally valid lifestyle choice. Which you should know, if your own value system was rational. But it doesn't seem to be. Please don't do dangerous things like voting, OK?
That is what the death penalty is, is it not? State-sponsored murder?
No. Looking around a crowd, and setting a shrapnel bomb on the sidewalk next to children... that's murder. Executing a death sentence as punishment for that cold, calculated act of deliberate cruelty and murder isn't murder. It's self defense, it's punishment, and its putting him out of our and his eventual misery. The people who'd rather put him into several decades of psychological torture, and make a long series of other people wait on him, watch him, protect him while the families of his victims, and their children and grandchildren to work every day to pay some taxes in order provide those services... now that something awful.
If Tsarnaev were to choose to commit suicide during a life sentence, I suspect he could find a way. Does that assuage your distaste for my motives?
No. What you suspect he might be able to do has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of the word "murder."
So what? It's illegal to fly any toy RC gadget (let alone the bigger stuff) within 15 miles in every direction of downtown DC. If you're hovering a $20 mall kiosk toy copter four feet above your back yard grass way out in the Virginia or Maryland suburbs, you're eligible for a $10,000 fine and worse.
This idiot was deliberately flying out of a federally run park (oh yeah: flying any RC machine of any kind is now illegal in ALL federally administered parks and lands, which includes millions acres of wilderness, river/ocean coastlines, and more - not just downtown parks and monuments) so that he could take photos of the White House. Think it does seem a little bit reasonable to not be launching flying robots a couple hundred yards from the White House? Sure. But... fifteen miles away in Fairfax, VA or in places like a farm field outside Rockville or Greenbelt, MD? That's the government, here to help you.
So, you don't consider the Nobel prize winner for physics and Director Emeritus of Fermilab who gave it that name, Leon Lederman, to be a physicist? Or perhaps you've simply never heard of him.
I consider him exactly what he is: a physicist who regrets having ever used that phrase.
Whoosh. To some, "god" is not some intelligent deity, but the explanation for why things are.
So, to some... "god" is the laws of physics? Why assign the nature of existence a personality, or at least a noun that historically is associated with such? That's the magical thinking part.
Quarks, by the way, don't require me to believe in them, and nobody is asserting that the fact that one must believe in them without any prospect of every understanding them is somehow proof that they are real. That kind of baked-in insanity is peculiar to religion, not the scientific method (or math).
But I've long ago stopped 'judging' people if they feel different
Really? So if someone who says that you're not agreeing with their magical history because you're growing your beard properly says that you therefore should be stoned to death... you're not going to judge them? If you're just going to let them kill you for not complying with their delusional world view, because you find it politically incorrect or socially uncomfortable to do come right out and say that your world view is objectively more sound and rational than theirs, and that therefore their moral code is objectively inferior to yours... then you're the worst sort of moral relativist (in practical terms) and are part of the problem.
Calling irrational behavior what it is may be socially awkward with all the PC police running around, but how else will the crazy cultures ever improve? If you grant them a moral comfort zone by tacitly equating stone-the-rape-victim with embrace-the-scientific-method in order to avoid sounding judgmental... then please don't make any other value judgments (by, say, voting or something).
Just don't interfere with me having my view, I won't interfere with you having your view, and we're cool. Comprendre?
Oh, so you ARE willing to make moral judgments about other people's world views, but only when it directly impacts you. But if they leave you alone while they, say, butcher someone else who thinks and acts just like you - well, who are you to judge, right?
Your write. Theirs know raisin too every extinguish between too words that seam clothes enough in how they sound.
Why evolve a language into a form that's clearer and easier to use, right? Right! All of this revisionism is nonsense, and we should be sticking with Ye Olde English. Or better yet, a bit of Chaucer-style middle English, right? Of course, he was a revisionist bastard wasn't he! He was probably looking down on those primitive Anglo-Saxons and their "clear from context" runic vagueness. We should all be speaking proto-German so as not to come across acting superior by simply wanting to be clearly understood.
Lazy, inconsistent use of basic punctuation things like possessive forms indicate a lazy mind. The point isn't that using the correct form is the rule-followers lording it over the hipster rebels. The point is that when their are two very distinct and clearer different (meaning) forms used by, oh, a billion people or so to mean very specific, very different things in routine usage, the person who sloppily muddles them together is deliberately deciding to be LESS clear as a communicator.
Why have dozens of different words for the color blue, right? Why bother with more than one word that means "fast" or more than one term of affection or disregard? Because the wider, richer language makes it possible to communicate more eloquently, succinctly, and with clearer purpose. Lazy communicators like to waste other people's time. They're the ones who drive slowly in the left lane, stand in the way in a store aisles while TXTing, and just generally aren't thinking about whether they way they interact with the rest of the world exhibits, or doesn't, any sort of thoughtfulness. Taking a complex, precise set of choices about which word or form to use, and dumbing it down through blurring and muddling of usage... THAT is the revisionism you should be fretting about. Because it's culturally toxic. It erodes, rather than sustains the sort of communal intellect we need in order to improve society.
No. "It's" is a contraction of "it is," and "its" is possessive in a form much like the word "his."
What you're rejecting is clarity in communication. Why?
You are the one introducing the "hail of bullets" as a constant, not me
No I'm not. I'm the one pointing out to the GP who said we see a constant display of cops busting down doors and delivering a hail of bullets that that narrative is total BS. I'm saying it's BS, and you're citing... nothing that backs up the absurd comic book picture he's painting.
Yes. As a frequently arrested and convicted criminal who was carrying a weapon, he might have avoided some trouble by not giving every appearance of being in the middle of, or in possession of something illegal. Running when you see cops and not stopping when told to is exactly the wrong thing to do when you're a well known criminal who had frequently been caught with contraband, etc. So yes, I think he was stupid to put on such a guilty-looking display, and to further ignore the cops order to simply stop, and to resist. Stupid across the board, on top of an existing career record of being stupid, criminally.
He was not found to be engaged in any illegal activity
The police report is at odds with the charges filed. The police report found that Gray was carrying an illegal weapon (Baltimore's laws are different - more restrictive - than the wider state laws). That was the basis for the arrest, though it was his behavior in the context of his long and well-known criminal history that caused the police to want to stop him when he put on his flight performance.
He did not show sufficient humility in the face of police presence
What? He took of running, just as he'd done previously in advance of being arrested and convicted for criminal behavior. But even with that, if he hadn't been carrying the weapon, there'd been no arrest.
A young black man makes eye contact and he's sent to the morgue
No, a well known career criminal makes a break for it the moment he sees the cops, is found to be carrying an illegal weapon, and is sent to booking. Specialists now reviewing the autopsy report are saying there's no grounds for homicide charges presented, probably only negligence - involuntary manslaughter at most, which says there was no intent to kill.
Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.
That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence? Because I saw someone else with exactly as much evidence say that Freddy Gray was killed by that guy from the X-Men who can materialize at will inside police vans and break necks.
He was stopped because he was a well known criminal hanging out in a high-crime area who took off running as soon as he saw the police and wouldn't stop when asked to. There is a legal scuffle going on right now as to whether or not the spring-loaded knife he was carrying fits within the local law's boundaries of a reason to turn that stop into an actual arrest. Which has nothing to do with whether or not he should have been restrained (by a seat belt, etc) in the van (he should have been). But your glib conclusion that he was "killed for eyeballing them" is as absurd as the de/materializing mutant theory. He died from, at worst, bad luck and lazy (legally negligent, most likely) van loading protocol lapse.
So, indeed, you can come up with a story. One. We're talking about the assertion that this is a "constant" pattern. You know, hail of bullets, all the time, as described. You're completely failing to establish the existence of this constant event.
Why do you need a source for something that happens constantly.
Because everyone knows you're selling a myth that it "happens constantly." That's why you can't point to a list of examples of it happening "constantly" and instead go right for the race card in order to distract.
"In case the police come busting in" is a condition typically followed by a hailstorm of bullets here in the United States
I see. You live inside a bad television episode? How many hacker apartment door breakdowns followed by "hailstorms of bullets" can you cite from this month, here in this country of over 300,000,000 people? Please be specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Its murder when someone you disagree with kills someone in a way you disapprove of.
Ah, another acute case of moral relativism. Is that painful?
He would not have faced a trial if he hadn't decided that his brother's plan to slaughter some innocent people as a form of political expression was cool idea. You think that's just another world view, just a shoe on another foot. Yeah, everything's OK, because there's always someone who thinks it's OK, right?
No. Setting out to main and kill innocent people, including kids, for the sake of maiming and killing them, is not OK in any rational value system. Irrational value systems are objectively inferior. Acting out, murderously, in the service of an irrational value system, isn't just one more equally valid lifestyle choice. Which you should know, if your own value system was rational. But it doesn't seem to be. Please don't do dangerous things like voting, OK?
That is what the death penalty is, is it not? State-sponsored murder?
No. Looking around a crowd, and setting a shrapnel bomb on the sidewalk next to children ... that's murder. Executing a death sentence as punishment for that cold, calculated act of deliberate cruelty and murder isn't murder. It's self defense, it's punishment, and its putting him out of our and his eventual misery. The people who'd rather put him into several decades of psychological torture, and make a long series of other people wait on him, watch him, protect him while the families of his victims, and their children and grandchildren to work every day to pay some taxes in order provide those services ... now that something awful.
If Tsarnaev were to choose to commit suicide during a life sentence, I suspect he could find a way. Does that assuage your distaste for my motives?
No. What you suspect he might be able to do has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of the word "murder."
Parrot BeBop. A toy, basically.
The drone did not go into Whitehouse property.
So what? It's illegal to fly any toy RC gadget (let alone the bigger stuff) within 15 miles in every direction of downtown DC. If you're hovering a $20 mall kiosk toy copter four feet above your back yard grass way out in the Virginia or Maryland suburbs, you're eligible for a $10,000 fine and worse.
... fifteen miles away in Fairfax, VA or in places like a farm field outside Rockville or Greenbelt, MD? That's the government, here to help you.
This idiot was deliberately flying out of a federally run park (oh yeah: flying any RC machine of any kind is now illegal in ALL federally administered parks and lands, which includes millions acres of wilderness, river/ocean coastlines, and more - not just downtown parks and monuments) so that he could take photos of the White House. Think it does seem a little bit reasonable to not be launching flying robots a couple hundred yards from the White House? Sure. But
So, you don't consider the Nobel prize winner for physics and Director Emeritus of Fermilab who gave it that name, Leon Lederman, to be a physicist? Or perhaps you've simply never heard of him.
I consider him exactly what he is: a physicist who regrets having ever used that phrase.
So, all the physicists who call the Higgs bosun "the God Particle" are magical thinkers?
No, that's journalists who call it that. I've yet to ever hear of a physicist who doesn't hate that term.
That's exactly what "Mother Nature" is.
Exactly. People who feel the need to give it a personality aren't any different than any other magical thinker.
Whoosh. To some, "god" is not some intelligent deity, but the explanation for why things are.
So, to some ... "god" is the laws of physics? Why assign the nature of existence a personality, or at least a noun that historically is associated with such? That's the magical thinking part.
Quarks, by the way, don't require me to believe in them, and nobody is asserting that the fact that one must believe in them without any prospect of every understanding them is somehow proof that they are real. That kind of baked-in insanity is peculiar to religion, not the scientific method (or math).
What definition of God? The omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal, intelligent creator one, or the Mother Nature one?
Does it make a difference? You're basing your world view around magical thinking, or you're not.
But I've long ago stopped 'judging' people if they feel different
Really? So if someone who says that you're not agreeing with their magical history because you're growing your beard properly says that you therefore should be stoned to death ... you're not going to judge them? If you're just going to let them kill you for not complying with their delusional world view, because you find it politically incorrect or socially uncomfortable to do come right out and say that your world view is objectively more sound and rational than theirs, and that therefore their moral code is objectively inferior to yours ... then you're the worst sort of moral relativist (in practical terms) and are part of the problem.
Calling irrational behavior what it is may be socially awkward with all the PC police running around, but how else will the crazy cultures ever improve? If you grant them a moral comfort zone by tacitly equating stone-the-rape-victim with embrace-the-scientific-method in order to avoid sounding judgmental... then please don't make any other value judgments (by, say, voting or something).
Just don't interfere with me having my view, I won't interfere with you having your view, and we're cool. Comprendre?
Oh, so you ARE willing to make moral judgments about other people's world views, but only when it directly impacts you. But if they leave you alone while they, say, butcher someone else who thinks and acts just like you - well, who are you to judge, right?
Religion doesn't cause wars
You don't actually pay attention, do you.
Or painting.
Your write. Theirs know raisin too every extinguish between too words that seam clothes enough in how they sound.
... THAT is the revisionism you should be fretting about. Because it's culturally toxic. It erodes, rather than sustains the sort of communal intellect we need in order to improve society.
Why evolve a language into a form that's clearer and easier to use, right? Right! All of this revisionism is nonsense, and we should be sticking with Ye Olde English. Or better yet, a bit of Chaucer-style middle English, right? Of course, he was a revisionist bastard wasn't he! He was probably looking down on those primitive Anglo-Saxons and their "clear from context" runic vagueness. We should all be speaking proto-German so as not to come across acting superior by simply wanting to be clearly understood.
Lazy, inconsistent use of basic punctuation things like possessive forms indicate a lazy mind. The point isn't that using the correct form is the rule-followers lording it over the hipster rebels. The point is that when their are two very distinct and clearer different (meaning) forms used by, oh, a billion people or so to mean very specific, very different things in routine usage, the person who sloppily muddles them together is deliberately deciding to be LESS clear as a communicator.
Why have dozens of different words for the color blue, right? Why bother with more than one word that means "fast" or more than one term of affection or disregard? Because the wider, richer language makes it possible to communicate more eloquently, succinctly, and with clearer purpose. Lazy communicators like to waste other people's time. They're the ones who drive slowly in the left lane, stand in the way in a store aisles while TXTing, and just generally aren't thinking about whether they way they interact with the rest of the world exhibits, or doesn't, any sort of thoughtfulness. Taking a complex, precise set of choices about which word or form to use, and dumbing it down through blurring and muddling of usage
No. "It's" is a contraction of "it is," and "its" is possessive in a form much like the word "his." What you're rejecting is clarity in communication. Why?
...and you happen to have a mirror handy, you might just catch it's light echoes.
My mirror was destroyed by extraneous apostrophe shrapnel from the exploding tree, you insensitive clod.
think the Fuck you pay me rule applies in this case
Right. It's called "the salary you negotiate." I don't know why this is so confusing to everybody.
You are the one introducing the "hail of bullets" as a constant, not me
No I'm not. I'm the one pointing out to the GP who said we see a constant display of cops busting down doors and delivering a hail of bullets that that narrative is total BS. I'm saying it's BS, and you're citing ... nothing that backs up the absurd comic book picture he's painting.
Do you blame him for running?
Yes. As a frequently arrested and convicted criminal who was carrying a weapon, he might have avoided some trouble by not giving every appearance of being in the middle of, or in possession of something illegal. Running when you see cops and not stopping when told to is exactly the wrong thing to do when you're a well known criminal who had frequently been caught with contraband, etc. So yes, I think he was stupid to put on such a guilty-looking display, and to further ignore the cops order to simply stop, and to resist. Stupid across the board, on top of an existing career record of being stupid, criminally.
He was not found to be engaged in any illegal activity
The police report is at odds with the charges filed. The police report found that Gray was carrying an illegal weapon (Baltimore's laws are different - more restrictive - than the wider state laws). That was the basis for the arrest, though it was his behavior in the context of his long and well-known criminal history that caused the police to want to stop him when he put on his flight performance.
He did not show sufficient humility in the face of police presence
What? He took of running, just as he'd done previously in advance of being arrested and convicted for criminal behavior. But even with that, if he hadn't been carrying the weapon, there'd been no arrest.
A young black man makes eye contact and he's sent to the morgue
No, a well known career criminal makes a break for it the moment he sees the cops, is found to be carrying an illegal weapon, and is sent to booking. Specialists now reviewing the autopsy report are saying there's no grounds for homicide charges presented, probably only negligence - involuntary manslaughter at most, which says there was no intent to kill.
The police report, asshole.
The police report actually says that they "killed him for eyeballing them?"
Please show the text.
Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.
That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence? Because I saw someone else with exactly as much evidence say that Freddy Gray was killed by that guy from the X-Men who can materialize at will inside police vans and break necks.
He was stopped because he was a well known criminal hanging out in a high-crime area who took off running as soon as he saw the police and wouldn't stop when asked to. There is a legal scuffle going on right now as to whether or not the spring-loaded knife he was carrying fits within the local law's boundaries of a reason to turn that stop into an actual arrest. Which has nothing to do with whether or not he should have been restrained (by a seat belt, etc) in the van (he should have been). But your glib conclusion that he was "killed for eyeballing them" is as absurd as the de/materializing mutant theory. He died from, at worst, bad luck and lazy (legally negligent, most likely) van loading protocol lapse.
So, indeed, you can come up with a story. One. We're talking about the assertion that this is a "constant" pattern. You know, hail of bullets, all the time, as described. You're completely failing to establish the existence of this constant event.
If you want anecdotes, hit google yourself.
Ah, so you can't come up with such a pattern either. As expected.
Why do you need a source for something that happens constantly.
Because everyone knows you're selling a myth that it "happens constantly." That's why you can't point to a list of examples of it happening "constantly" and instead go right for the race card in order to distract.
"In case the police come busting in" is a condition typically followed by a hailstorm of bullets here in the United States
I see. You live inside a bad television episode? How many hacker apartment door breakdowns followed by "hailstorms of bullets" can you cite from this month, here in this country of over 300,000,000 people? Please be specific.
They did just that.