Forgiveness

[KacyRay]

Greg:

I especially wanted to address this idea because you had shifted the topic from a personal assault to an assault on a group.

You said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault. You didn't say "no such thing as an unprovoked assault on an individual". And in almost all the cases I cited (except 9/1) the crimes were carried out by individuals. It's the aggressors behavior you're claiming we can predict.

I can't believe I have to point this out, but this statement is so far removed from reality that I can't believe it has been uttered. First of all, it's demonstratably false. Do you realize how easily you could have been in the WTC on 9-11? Or a passenger on one of the planes? Or a pilot on one of them? The only thing your awareness would have gotten you is that you'd have been keenly aware that you were about to die.

I especially wanted to address this idea because you had shifted the topic from a personal assault to an assault on a group.

I've stated more than once here that it is easy to predict how a group of particles will behave, but impossible to predict what one particle will do. In a like manner, we give up our freedom of personal autonomous action when we choose to become part of a group. For by becoming part of a group we share the same fate as the group. Now this double edged principle can either work in our favor... or it can work against us.

Personally, this is why I generally tend to avoid large groups, and live in a rural area instead of in a city.

And this is why my comments pertained to personal assaults, because there is where you have the most freedom of individual spontaneous action, as well as the most personal control over the outcome.


Greg

This is all a bit vague. What constitutes a "group"? Does being out in public mean you're in a group? Does going to your job as a commercial pilot qualify (apparently it does) but walking down the street with a couple of friends doesn't (since you can knocked out)?

Technically, any time you're around people, you're in a group (if you zoom out just a little).

I think you're playing word salad with this. My issue is with your contention that there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, and I provided several examples in individuals who were doing their own individual thing and got assaulted without provoking it.

To wit:

Do you realize that many "impenetrable" men such as you clearly imagine yourself are lying in the graves right now? Do you think maybe Chris Kyle was aware of his surroundings? Or did he invite his own victimization? How about Christina Taylor Green, 9, who was shot by the deranged lunatic that shot Gabrielle Giffords? Is she to blame for being too soft a target?

Do you think Michael Landsberry was just too tragically unaware of his surroundings?

The aggressor in each of these cases was an individual. And in the case of Kyle, the target was an individual.

You're moving the goalposts and not really justifying your statement. But don't work too hard at it... I don't plan on getting too bogged down in this conversation. You seem to let flow with all kinds of assertions that you can't possibly know.

I don't think you're a dangerous person. But I think you're thinking dangerous thoughts. The ideas you're communicating are dangerous indeed. Any acceptance of the idea that a victim is to blame for their own victimization is dangerous.

Yes, we all make decisions. Yes, we're all responsible to take reasonable precautions for our own safety and security. Yes, we are responsible to exercise good judgment. But sometimes people do all the above and are still victimized. In fact, that happen quite frequently.

And here's where I'm thinking... since you obviously know you're not omniscient, and can't have knowledge of every assault, you are not saying that there simply haven't been any unprovoked assaults... you are saying that an assault, by its very nature, is provoked (I recognize you tried to change it to enabled a few comments ago, but you are the one who said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault).

It sounds like you are saying that all assault (from individuals to individuals) are enabled by the victim. Again, this is a big vague. If I lock the doors to my house, have I enabled anyone with a battering ram to get through? If I lock my car door, have I enabled someone to smash the window?

I detect a serious virus in this thinking.

I get the sense that you are the sort of guy who has a panic room, and is armed to the teeth in preparation for the coming (armageddon/race-war/progressive 2nd Amendment power-grab/<insert fearmonger theory here>). Am I on track?

[KacyRay]

moralist

That's what the n-words look for... a stupid unaware mark.

You realize that by saying "n-word" you're not changing the racist nature of your comment, right? I mean, you don't just get to type away racism.

I think "nigger" is a horrible concept.... but if you're going to employ the concept, have the balls to use the word.

[moralist]

You said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault. You didn't say "no such thing as an unprovoked assault on an individual".

Take another look at what preceded that statement, Kacey. It was personal assaults with the example of a knockdown. I also made it clear that an individual's freedom to act is impaired by their sharing the fate of the group to which they chose to belong.

So to sum this all up:

In my view, as individuals, we have both the power as well as the personal responsibility to act on our awareness to prevent evil people from harming us.

And in your view, we are helpless powerless victims who cannot prevent evil people from harming us.

There is no agreement possible. Only each of us defining our respective views.

Greg

[moralist]

moralist

That's what the n-words look for... a stupid unaware mark.

You realize that by saying "n-word" you're not changing the racist nature of your comment, right?

All of the reported knockdowns were committed by blacks. Even your liberal media can't hide that fact. I used that word to describe the scum who committed those immoral acts.

Greg

[KacyRay]

Alright brother... goodnight.

[KacyRay]

(my liberal media) ...

[KacyRay]

I used that word to describe the scum who committed those immoral acts.

No, actually you didn't use the word.

Come on greg.... use the word. Tell us all how you feel about those n-words.

[moralist]

I used that word to describe the scum who committed those immoral acts.

No, actually you didn't use the word.

Just alluding to it was more than enough to describe the degenerates who committed those immoral acts.

Come on greg.... use the word. Tell us all how you feel about those n-words.

Regardless of your playing the liberal deceit of trying to make it a matter of race when it's not. The reality remains solely a matter of moral values.

Greg

[KacyRay]

What does anything I'm saying have to do with liberalism???

Is that the knee-jerk reflex.... when confronted with uncomfortable aspects of your own argument, to turn around and sling the l-word at the other guy?

"You've detected subtle racist attitudes in my dialogue!!! YOU LIBERAL!!!"

[Selene]

Apropos of this sandbox "argument" by you two (2) pre-schoolers, Ann Coulter opined in her column:

Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean "liberal"? What do you mean "democracy"? What do you mean "patriotism"?

They retreat from argument, burning the English language as they go.

She continues, setting her argument, by stating that:

As a result, liberals are denying the "Knockout Game" exists by refusing to understand the meaning of basic words, such as "game" and "trend."

Knockout Game-debunkers place great significance, for example, on the fact that the assailants have not signed affidavits calling it a "game."

She then observes that there appears to be a "pattern" that revolves around these "assaults:'

Thus, The New York Times noted that in one recent case of a random stranger being knocked out by young black males, "the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized 'game.'"

Another piece of supportive evidence arrives in her column:

A 78-year-old woman is punched by a young black male for no reason, and the Times' central point is: "Perp says it's not a 'game.'"

And another:

Similarly, in Philadelphia magazine, Stephen Silver said of two recent knockout attacks in Philadelphia that he wasn't counting either one as "confirmed cases of the Knockout Game" on the grounds that the puncher said he "was not participating in the Game."

She then begins to get into the substance of her argument:

The Huffington Post concluded that the Knockout Game was "fabricated" based on one of the most famous victims, James Addlespurger, denying that it was a game. Instead, he calls his knockout an "assault," saying "game" is just a "label."

Hey, you know what else is just a label? The word "assault." "James Addlespurger" is a label. Another expression for "label" is "word" -- meaning, "something liberals try to blow up whenever they're about to be trapped into admitting the truth."

Dripping with satire she begins to conclude that:

Liberals also seem unfamiliar with the word "trend," mocking the idea that the Knockout Game constitutes one.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "trend" is. ("Trend," "game" and "is" -- three words liberals can't understand when they're lying.)

For this, we again turn to the Old Gray Lady, Trend Spotter. Over the years, the Times has identified "trends" in "eating oysters," "honesty" in home furnishings and pocket-watch tattoos.

In none of these cases was the identification of a trend subjected to the exacting analysis the Times employed to deny that the Knockout Game was a "trend." (Say, was the wanton violence by Democratic Party offshoot the Ku Klux Klan a "trend" or more of a "fad"?)

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-12-11.html#read_more

She makes a credible argument with supportive evidence.

As opposed to you two (2) pre-schoolers who have barely risen above the "your mother wears combat boots" level of name calling and talking past each other.

Just some Sunday thoughts...

Hallelujah!

A...

Secretly thinking of becoming a Theocrat For Palin

"I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah"

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/hallelujah.html

[moralist]

What does anything I'm saying have to do with liberalism???

Because only liberals play the race card.

In my view, this is a matter of moral values.

While in your view, it is a matter of racism.

And that defines another difference between our two views.

Greg

[KacyRay]

What does anything I'm saying have to do with liberalism???

Because only liberals play the race card.

In my view, this is a matter of moral values.

While in your view, it is a matter of racism.

And that defines another difference between our two views.

Greg

By "play the race card" you mean "raise the flag when subtle indicators of racist attitudes are detected"?

Really, only liberals do that? Wow... if that's the case, then non-libs ought to be ashamed of themselves. But once again, by making such absolute statements, you're demonstrating a willingness to speak with absolute certainty on things you can't possibly know.

"While in your view, it is a matter of racism."

No, it's not a matter of racism. Racism is merely a feature of your position, not the essence of it. But I find it amusing that you seem to have this "out" all worked out, so that you never have to answer for your racist attitudes.

See, it is so simple, and so effective! It goes like this...

1) State a position, however irrational, and lace it with a racist undertone.

2) Wait for your opponent to point out the racist undertone

3) Label your opponent a liberal

And viola, you have a "Get out of a morally questionable statement free" card!

[And you'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky liberals!]

[KacyRay]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Another tragically unaware person suffers the consequences of her own foolishness. How dare she expect to be able to go to high school without being shot?

Luckily, she survived. Hopefully she knows to be on her toes next time.

[moralist]

Kacey, the fact that even you can't avoid denying is that the knockdown assaults were done by blacks.

Greg

[moralist]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Another tragically unaware person suffers the consequences of her own foolishness. How dare she expect to be able to go to high school without being shot?

Luckily, she survived. Hopefully she knows to be on her toes next time.

You are supporting your view that we are helpless victims who are powerless to prevent evil people from harming us.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I agree with Greg that he is not displaying racism.

If only blacks are doing something new and you say, hey, I notice only blacks are doing that, it's not racist.

I know I haven't seen whites do the knockout game yet. If only white guys start doing that and black guys stop, I hardly expect to be called a racist if I say, hey, I notice only white guys are doing that these days.

What if only Hispanics start doing it?

Or women?

Or midgets?

Midgets? Dayaamm! How's that for bigotry?

Also, I have noticed that only left-leaning people call others racist at the drop of a feather as an intimidation tactic. I don't see right-leaning people ever do that.

Maybe that's because they're all racists underneath?

Obama's a leftist.

That's because you're a racist.

I hate Obamacare.

That's because you're a racist.

Obama is overstepping his constitutional powers.

That's because you're a racist.

I want to see Obama out of office because I can't stand big government people.

Bullshit. That's because you're a racist and can't stand seeing a black guy as president.

I only see blacks doing the knockout game.

That's because you're really really really really really really a racist. Go on and use the n-word you lily livered coward. You can't do it can you? Hypocrite!

(Oops... lilies are wh... wh... wh... white...)

And so it goes...

Michael

[KacyRay]

Kacey, the fact that even you can't avoid denying is that the knockdown assaults were done by blacks.

Greg

Gregg,

I haven't investigated every instance of reported knockouts. I am reasonably certain that not all instances of the KG have made headlines, so I'm reasonably certain that you can't know the race of 100% of the assailants. But don't let that stop you from stating it with certainty.

You are supporting your view that we are helpless victims who are powerless to prevent evil people from harming us.

There's a huge spectrum between completely helpless and bulletproof. Our ability to protect ourselves only goes so far, and once we've fortified our position as much as can reasonably expected, we have to hope that no one penetrates.

Did you know that safes and vaults are measured by how many man-hours are required to penetrate? The stronger the vault, the more man-hours it takes to penetrate. None are considered impenetrable.

I do not believe we are helpless. I believe that all steps taken to fortify ourselves come at a cost, and that a reasonable person makes a reasonable assessment as to what cost they're going to pay and what risk they'll accept.

Those who makes the most reasonable assessment assume the least amount of risk necessary in order to enjoy life as much as they can.

Your position is that accepting any risk at puts you at fault for any evil that takes advantage of that vulnerability. That is an unreasonable position. And it's hypocritical, since you (whether you admit it or not) assume risk every day you go out into the world. The graves are filled with men like you why thought they had mitigated all possible vulnerabilities.

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

I agree with Greg that he is not displaying racism.

If only blacks are doing something new and you say, hey, I notice only blacks are doing that, it's not racist.

I know I haven't seen whites do the knockout game yet. If only white guys start doing that and black guys stop, I hardly expect to be called a racist if I say, hey, I notice only white guys are doing that these days.

What if only Hispanics start doing it?

Or women?

Or midgets?

Midgets? Dayaamm! How's that for bigotry?

Also, I have noticed that only left-leaning people call others racist at the drop of a feather as an intimidation tactic. I don't see right-leaning people ever do that.

Maybe that's because they're all racists underneath?

Obama's a leftist.

That's because you're a racist.

I hate Obamacare.

That's because you're a racist.

Obama is overstepping his constitutional powers.

That's because you're a racist.

I want to see Obama out of office because I can't stand big government people.

Bullshit. That's because you're a racist and can't stand seeing a black guy as president.

I only see blacks doing the knockout game.

That's because you're really really really really really really a racist. Go on and use the n-word you lily livered coward. You can't do it can you? Hypocrite!

(Oops... lilies are wh... wh... wh... white...)

And so it goes...

Michael

Michael,

Racist undertones are there, and here's why...

Let's assume for a moment that Gregg has examined all reported cases of the KG. I'm sure he hasn't but let's give him that for now.

Do you suppose that the assailants had only one thing in common, and that was their race?

Do you think that the crimes were committed by blacks from the ghetto, gangster blacks, nigerian immigrants, suburban black youth, young black athletes, maybe a couple a black chess players, and a black objectivist?

Or do you think that maybe those black kids had something more fundamental in common than their race?

Maybe they were all ghetto?

Maybe they were all gang members?

Were they all the product of single mothers from broken homes, raised by their grandmothers and abused by their step-fathers?

Were they all raised in the system? Fostered?

Maybe they were all trailer trash criminals who had already been arrested multiple times?

Maybe they were all high-school dropouts?

Maybe they were all church-going christians?

I don't know... but I suspect they had more in common than just their race. But the fact that it is RACE that is the one thing Gregg zoned in on immediately indicates an underlying racist attitude.

Also, I have noticed that only left-leaning people call others racist at the drop of a feather as an intimidation tactic. I don't see right-leaning people ever do that.

Calling someone racist and pointing out racist undercurrents in their statements are two different things. Obviously any intimidation tactics are to be repudiated, but you're committing a basic logical fallacy if you're going to suggest that if an observation is made illegitimately sometimes (or even most of the time) that it is therefore never a legitimate observation.

If only blacks are doing something new and you say, hey, I notice only blacks are doing that, it's not racist.

Assuming that's even true, the problem isn't that he notices only blacks are doing it, it is that he only notices blacks are doing it.

Again, there are no doubt many commonalities between those thugs. But he only noticed their race.

Sorry man, call me whatever you want, but that is a racist proclivity. Interesting that you exhibit zero tolerance for racist attitudes against Jews that came from SB, but racist attitudes against blacks coming from Gregg are not only permissible, but you are rushing to their defense.

[moralist]

Kacey, the fact that even you can't avoid denying is that the knockdown assaults were done by blacks.

Greg

Gregg,

I haven't investigated every instance of reported knockouts.

See? You can't even admit the obvious truth that knockdown is predominantly a black phenomenon... and neither does your media.

Greg

[KacyRay]

Greg,

Because, unlike you, I don't lay claim to knowledge I do not possess.

[moralist]

Do you suppose that the assailants had only one thing in common, and that was their race?

They had only one thing in common:

rotten values

I doubt that there's much more to be said.

You have already fully described and supported your view of people as helpless powerless victims who can do nothing to prevent evil people from harming them.

And I've described my view of people who, by their awareness, can prevent evil people from harming them.

Greg

[KacyRay]

Do you suppose that the assailants had only one thing in common, and that was their race?

They had only one thing in common:

rotten values

I doubt that there's much more to be said.

You have already fully described and supported your view of people as helpless powerless victims who can do nothing to prevent evil people from harming them.

Heh... yeah... my actual words notwithstanding.

And I've described my view of people who, by their awareness, can prevent evil people from harming them.

I agree... not much more to be said. Stay aware, brother.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Because, unlike you, I don't lay claim to knowledge I do not possess.

But the fact that it is RACE that is the one thing Gregg zoned in on immediately indicates an underlying racist attitude.

Heh.

Michael

[KacyRay]

MSK - I'm assuming that was an attempt to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency?

I don't see it.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure glad my noble soul is above all this.

--Brant

take that!