KacyRay

I picked the wrong day to have fun. Sorry

Holy shit... I've actually become my own definition of a troll. Can we forget about this post???

At least I think he was.... The story I got was from the lame stream media, so I'm sure Obama had something to do with it. George Soros made sure that the execution of KJU's uncle made Obama look good. And of course, I love George Soros. And I love Obama. God I love being a liberal!!!

Selene, I don't mind getting under your skin. In fact, it entertains me. But know that it's all in good fun. I don't know how you perceive me, but I'm just a guy who's trying to live out his life leaving the world better than he found it. And I think that everything we do touches everything else.

The whole sarcasm thing doesn't translate so well to you, hey?

To piss you off man. Don't you know that's why I'm here!

I can only remember a few times in my life when I experienced actual depression over the death of a celebrity. The first time was when John Belushi died. I was very young, but The Blues Brothers was not just my favorite movie, it was the only movie. I couldn't believe there would never be another Blues Brothers movie. (Now I just wish I had been right about that.) I remember it again when Jeff Buckley died in 1997. He had only put out one album and it is still one of the best of all time. Gone way too young. I remember it when Robert B. Parker died a few years back. I have been a fan of the Spenser series for my entire adult life. When he died, it felt like Spenser died. But he was old, and it wasn't unexpected. I felt it a *little* when James Gandolfini died, but not quite as much. Barbara was more than a celebrity to a lot of us though. She was an influence and she was living history. I can't say her death impacts me the way it does you, but I can respect what she did, what she went through, and how she came out the other side. I wish I'd have been able to meet her.

I know that affects you pretty greatly. My condolences... I suspect it's like losing a family member. To me, she was real in the sense that the guys in Rush are real, Ayn Rand was real, Michael Jordan is real... To you, she was a friend. I can understand that you would be out of sorts today.

Kacy, Here is where I have trouble. The people who point fingers at others for expressing their opinions and beliefs, call them dangerous, shame on them, they are immoral, etc. etc. etc., especially when they say they won't participate in the victimization game under any circumstances, generally support government controls on what people are allowed to do, say, etc., (including entitlements), as this supposedly comes from an enlightened morality. But government controls and entitlements create a huge amount of victims that such people generally blank out. In fact, they generally think such victims are morally responsible for what happens to them--money that is confiscated from the rich, nay, not even the rich, just the well-off, the intelligent one who shined too much in school who got his wings clipped, etc. And those are the victims Rand liked to defend. But what about the poor people in ghettos who have grown so soft by being on the dole they can't make a living on their own? What about their kids who become gang members because the only people they can look up to are on the dole? And the victims of those gang members? These are all victims. I never hear concern about those victims from finger-pointers. So the concern with respect for victims rings hollow to me. A victim is a victim. It's OK to cherry pick victims and try to defend the ones the person favors, but this does not make the person a hero of humanity and defender of all victims--especially when such person promotes policies that create more victims. I disagree with Greg. I've told him and, guess what? He disagrees with me. But we have one thing where we agree on unconditionally. I will not force him to say or do something he does not believe in, nor will he do likewise to me. I know I shouldn't speak for another, but I've seen enough to be quite comfortable saying that. (And if I'm wrong, I ask Greg to please correct me.) But in my disagreement with him, I don't consider the argument for government controls in any way superior to what he argues. I would be more in line with your approach if you did not have this underlying government position to fall back on. But since you do, I would characterize his position as live and let live while expressing his opinion (irrespective of how right or wrong it is), whereas the government people's position is live and behave my way or suffer the consequences I--or those I support--will bring down on your head. (They rarely say it that way, but they will go there when push comes to shove and a person refuses to comply, especially in a public manner.) So the moral superiority you imply you promote is not as clear to me as it is to you. The opposite isn't clear either, but it is less muddy since implied (but real) coercion is off the table. I am observing the effect on others of Greg's refusal to play the victimization game (even if he steps outside of common sense in my opinion). I wonder if the disproportionate hostility I observe is not so much due to the moral superiority of his critic, but more due to the fact that he thereby removes the only weapon of inducing guilt most people know how to operate with any degree of competence. I mean, how are you going to control others and hide it if you can't induce guilt in them? Sorry to sound accusatory, but my intent isn't to attack. I'm legitimately interested in what's unrolling around Greg and I don't think it's as simple as you claim. (btw - I am just as critical of my own subconscious and I tend to study my own reactions in a manner very similar to what I am laying out here. I actually do this to myself. ) Michael Yeah, that would be a great argument if I was a person who supports government controls on what people do, say, etc... Are you under the impression I'm such a person? Why? Because I think fraud should be illegal? What gives you the idea that I think the government should control what we do and say? What have I ever said to put you under that impression?

Greg, you said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault. Are you going to act like that doesn't mean what it means? If you believe there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, then you believe that all assaults are, to some degree, provoked. And if you believe that all assaults are, to some degree, provoked... then you believe that all people who are assaulted are, to some degree, to blame for the fact that they were assaulted. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. Words mean things. You spoke the words. I'm simply articulating what those words mean. And no one is, I think, arguing what those words mean. MSK is simply trying to make a case against my assertion that someone who believes what you claim to be is dangerous. I don't think you're a ticking time bomb necessarily... but it will be tough to convince me that someone who blames all victims for their own victimization hasn't, to some degree, justified assault in their mind. And if you believe there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, then that means that you believe you can assault anyone you want with moral impunity, since all assaults are provoked. And once you go there... well, anything goes, right?

Liberty University <hearts> Palin. I'm sure they are all aware that she would *never* work to bring about their theocratic vision. </sarcasm>

I'm whack, y'all... I'm whack, y'all... I'm whackkity whack whack a-whack, y'all...

Yeah, I'm a wacky whack!

Brant, I'm all about personal responsibility. But I don't think this is an issue of taking something to the extreme. In this statement: "there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault", there is so much *bad* packaged in that I'm not sure I'd want to even hang around this guy long enough to pick out the *good*. I wonder if Greg feels that the sin of mankind was provoked by his god. But I'll take your advice Brant... reason is not even on the table here.

Greg, do you have any idea how disrespectful it is to the victims of unprovoked attacks to suggest that they are somehow morally responsible for what happened to them? I wouldn't wish this sort of thing on you at all, but what are you going to say if you are ever victimized in a situation where you've been as vigilant as you could reasonably expect to have been? (for example, you're standing in a bank line and the bank gets robbed, you get robbed, and your teeth get smashed in at gunpoint). Are you going to blame yourself? Are you going to claim you weren't aware enough? Are you going to blame evil thoughts you might have been having? Or are you going to do what I expect and insist it simply couldn't happen to you?

Don't mean to sound dramatic, MSK, but RB was right when he said that Greg (apparently) doesn't recognize the concept of victimization. Call it a hunch, intuition, whatever... a man who does not recognize the legitimacy of the concept of victimization cannot recognize the legitimacy of the concept of victimizing. He said himself that he recognizes no act as an "unprovoked assault". I realize he's a regular here and I don't him too well and you've hung out for a while (virtually), but I hope you'll understand why I would put myself immediately at a position of contention with someone who believes that all victims are to blame for their own victimization, who doesn't recognize that innocent people are often harmed by evil people just because the evil people are evil rather than because he innocent are weak and therefore morally culpable, and I hope you'll understand why I would regard a person who admittedly considers all assaults justified (or at a minimum - "provoked"). I hope you're able to connect the dots from what he's saying to what I'm hearing. When you say that there is no such thing as an unprovoked assault, you are saying that all assaults are provoked. When one believes an act is provoked, one typically believes the act is, to some degree, justifiable. And when one believes that, one believes all acts of evil are ultimately justified, to varying degrees. This isn't rocket science, man. This is reason 101. I am shocked no one else is catching this.

I wish I'd have been able to have a conversation with her. That would've been interesting.

Greg, I have to say... I have spent maybe the last 2-3 years in various forums arguing against feminists who accuse me of being a victim-blamer because I think that we all have have a personal responsibility to look out for our own safety while still acknowledging that 100% of the responsibility for victimization falls on the criminal. I have fought those charges despite the fact that I consistently insist that no victim is to blame for their victimization (despite the fact that they often shoulder some blame for irresponsible behavior). You are unlike anyone I've ever encountered. You are the archetype victim-blamer. 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. 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? First of all, you have zero knowledge of every knockout victim. Secondly some of them have been elderly, and you have no context in which to be able to speak with authority on the capacity of an elderly person to be aware of their surroundings OR their ability to affect their surroundings no matter how aware they are. You seem to have no problem flinging around moral judgments based on information you can't possibly know. You have exposed a seriously demented side of yourself here. You're literally blaming *every* victim for their victimization. I can't imagine the malevolence of your worldview. I am beginning to suspect you are one of those dangerous people. Oh, and then there's this... Is anyone else seeing this? Magic thought magnetism?

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required. There is no such thing as an unprovoked assault... just an open invitation. When the weakness of unawareness of your surroundings is perceived by a potential attacker, it offers them a ripe opportunity to pick the lowest hanging fruit. But if you make yourself inaccessible through your own awareness, they simply go find someone weaker. Greg Wow... you might be the most hardcore victim-blamer I've encountered in my life. Have you heard of the Knockout Game? It's all the rage these days. I'm interested how you could consider that anything other than an unprovoked assault.

Don't forget to get something for your kids that they will love!

???

No, I'm acknowledging your statement and indicating that I don't feel it's a point worth arguing. I'd prefer the guy who works the drive-thru window at the Wendy's down the street to Palin. (I might be exaggerating just a bit, but not a whole lot). McCain, I'd prefer of any of the others you named before. At least, if he was young enough to serve as President, which I don't think he is at this point. But that's only if I had to choose, which I don't.

Maybe this explains the tendency is some apologists to loudly and proudly declare their opponents to be ANGRY, PISSED OFF, HOPPING MAD, LOSING-THEIR-MINDS-FURIOUS when they are actually quite ambivalent. It is a false signal to the tribe that they control the other person. You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

Just as a side note... Reading some of what I'm writing, it occurs to me that one might interpret my tone as a reluctance to forgive that is borne from a refusal to let go of anger, or a dysfunctional sense of revenge, or something like that. That wouldn't be true at all. I am not reluctant to forgive. I am reluctant to sanction injurious behavior. And I haven't yet decided if the act of "forgiveness" is such an act.

See... forgiveness is something I'm still not fully grasping. What exactly does it mean to forgive? And is it always appropriate? If not, then when is it appropriate and when isn't it? As a refresher, we had a discussion on this exact topic earlier this year. We didn't really get into self-forgiveness, but I think that the principle of forgiveness... whatever the hell that might mean... would apply the same way regardless of the target. I don't think it's healthy to absolve an unpaid moral debt. Well, maybe it is sometimes, I don't know. When is it? When isn't it? And why would that be an appropriate thing to do? Is accepting the harm someone else has unapologetically dealt you akin to sanctioning your own victimhood? These are some of the questions I struggle with.