funny thing is:
- the girl who told me to wake up is my best friend/"sister." known her for 17 years. her husband strikes me as being one of these "tenther"/"birther" chumpstains (a "tenther," BTW, is a person who has suddenly determined that the tenth amendment renders most government programs unconstitutional - which is a gross misreading of the amendment) - a union guy who hates his union, even though he wouldn't be able to afford the house/wife/kid if his union hadn't kicked some ass before he got there.
- the "socialist" guy is a guy i've known for 22 years. also a close friend, he's the guy who co-hosts my (maybe never-coming-back...) political radio show. he thinks this new hatred for islam is his "jewish heritage" kicking in, which is ridiculous (some of our friends think he's doing too much cocaine, which is far more likely an explanation). i told him repeatedly during our discussion that i was physically sickened and repulsed by his sudden and fervent hatred of islam.
i posted up a comment on my facebook that read, "...was today stunned many times by people of varied political persuasions having such seemingly hateful and/or willfully ignorant positions (because it's easier to simplify and hate than to comprehend and rectify). Comprehension and derivation of a solution require people to move beyond differences to see their similarities. In other words: It takes work... but we're lazy Americans! So, we deserve what we get. :(" ... fortunately, a few of my other friends came out in support of me, so i don't feel like i'm in the ****ing twilight zone anymore
EDIT: the "socialist" didn't learn from our three hour shoutfest, and spewed on the facebook message above. FML indeed.
- god of cyanide
- Registered User
-
Member for 18 years, 4 months, and 9 days
Last active Wed, Oct, 7 2015 08:57:14
- 8 Followers
- 3,726 Total Posts
- 56 Thanks
-
Aug 30, 2009god of cyanide posted a message on more is coming...?well, thanks, ed. i try to be informative and honest, but i also believe in give and take in conversation - which i find lacking in the debate forum here often, and which is why i pop in, get uppity, get pissed and leave. there's no interest in give and take, unless you're the one doing all the giving and they're taking away your time.Posted in: 1-800-cyanide line
i believe time is our most valuable commodity, because it is not recreatable. so wastes of time are the worst wastes for me to see.
anyway, i'll start posting more around here when work starts up again and i have more juicy stuff to wig out about that's about how teaching leads you to abandon your willpower to not be homicidal. -
Aug 30, 2009god of cyanide posted a message on FML...yeah i have had a freaking day of this. just spent much of the last three hours trying to get my "socialist" friend to understand that religions don't oppress and incite violence, people USE religion to justify oppression and violence to its followers. this oppression and violence is largely motivated by factors that have little to do with religious doctrine - usually, it is economic and/or geographic factors. (basically, he had said that "islam should not be allowed to dominate the earth," followed soon by, "we shouldn't allow muslims to practice their faith in america because their religion preaches violence.")Posted in: 1-800-cyanide line
i have had a day of nonstop facepalming. my forehead hurts. -
Aug 29, 2009god of cyanide posted a message on Somewhere I belong...yeah, man, just chill out. who cares what other people think? **** 'em. "just do what ya feel and never follow."Posted in: Pet Snakes Corner
-
Jun 16, 2008god of cyanide posted a message on Animated Movies Worth Seeingi second "Titan AE". great flick.Posted in: Alacar's Design Zone
my only disagreement is with much of the disney stuff, but i'm pretty anti-disney, so...
also, where would movies like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "Space Jam" go? -
Mar 7, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on iTuneshey, you could download my podcast using iTunes! just for that, it should be lovedPosted in: Alacar's Design Zone
-
Mar 5, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on First Blog: Talented Mr. Roto is Dumbthen he has been given the most ridiculous nickname everPosted in: g
-
Mar 4, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on First Blog: Talented Mr. Roto is Dumbdude, quite funny and mostly spot on...Posted in: g
...except kevin youkilis is greek, not jewish. his nickname coming up was "the greek god of walks" because of his patience at the plate.
so even more bad on "mr. d'oh-to" -
Jan 29, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on See you all tomorrow!dude, good luck with this as well, and hurry up and get back already!!!Posted in: Umgenni's Journal
-
Jan 27, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on On the Test and a few other things.that test reminds me of a final i took in world history. the teacher never made it past the run-up to WW2 - and the essay question on the final was all about...Posted in: Umgenni's Journal
vietnam!!!
well, of course, i passed, because i can bull***** under pressure. but yeah, that kind of thing is nothing new... -
Jan 23, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on Dreamhold's Day 1 Sylph ProductionOMG wild thing is SO not tone loc's song!!!Posted in: FL's Fey Dreamhold
but i'm sure you knew that, jen.
the honor of the original recording of this oft-abused song belongs to a group named The Troggs.
anyway, nice blog, FL! -
Jan 23, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on Testing Entryme too! yay!!!Posted in: Umgenni's Journal
cool blog, good luck with everything
add my blog too! -
Jan 23, 2007god of cyanide posted a message on 1st... blog.... ever...nice? you must have me mistaken with someone else!Posted in: Sephiroth Owa's Blog
no seriously, YAY MTGS blogosphere.
both our extendo's were amazingly popular, so our blogs should be too.
stay cool (or warm...), brother! - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do not choose you.
2. Still not responding to it, either. I don't waste much time on people like you. Sorry if that's a problem. Wait, I'm not. Whatever.
The fact that you say "probably" here, even sarcastically, tells me I have good cause to not take any of your other opinions seriously.
Just an FYI, I've been the victim of someone attempting to kill me via choking me to death, to the point where he was choking me and telling me his only purpose in life was to kill me. I had a suspicion, which proved to be right, that his actions were under the influence of Paxil and alcohol; thus, after separating his hands from my throat, I rendered him unconscious. Would I have been justified if I had killed him instead? Was I, somehow, obligated to try to kill him, had I had a gun or other weapon at the time?
I'd definitely say no to both. Had he died as a result of my efforts to escape further harm, I would hope for, but not expect, leniency to some degree. But I wouldn't say I would have been justified to shoot him after he'd locked me in a bathroom for fifteen minutes, then stabbed me with a pen and slapped me multiple times when he finally let me out (the actions he committed before I physically engaged him). Nor would I have been justified at any point before he started choking me.
I certainly do not believe I ever had the right to take his life, for certain.
This is why I say there needs to be court discretion. It's beyond a reasonable doubt to expect Joe Gunowner to be that precise a shot in such a situation, no less. But to have the burden shift to the State is simply absurd.
Edit: I totally missed the edit to the above post. Stealing =/= use of lethal force. The State is not the same as an individual, and the case you present is citizen v. citizen, not citizen v. State as an assault/murder case would be. Never mind that, if they're friends, they should be settling this amongst themselves and end of story.
I know this is sarcasm... But, even then, if you don't see your shooter, your gun may be taken out of the equation anyway. You may as well have left it home.
Edit: removed double post
The burden should always be with the shooter, with the court having discretionary ability.
As I grow, I learn I disagree with many basic tenets of our court system. They seem to only work in a world where no one ever lies when they swear to not lie on the stand, and where silence can be a better defense than testifying.
The point is, regardless of whether your SYG defense is legitimate, you still have to prove it anyway, in which case the testimony and evidence will speak for itself. So, why bother having it as a law that people can hide behind and make it a court's discretion issue entirely, where there is never a guarantee unless legitimate.
Personally, I'd just rather live in a world with less guns than in a world where I have to be worried about cowards and psychos shooting at each other - and everyone else - on any sort of regular basis.
If you can walk around with an assault rifle, I want to walk around with two swords. I'll bet that is and will still be illegal. Guns are more lethal than swords and do not require you to be within a few feet of your victim. At least you have a chance at defeating a joker with two swords. A gun holder can accidentally kill you.
Many gun deaths to kids occur inside their homes or the homes of family members, often at the hands of other kids. Ever think about WHY, exactly, these things occur?
We treat driving as much more restricted a privilege in this country than we treat gun ownership. The only purpose of guns is to destroy property and life*; cars have a legitimate usage - personal transport - in which destruction is rare and nearly always accidental or circumstantial. Does it make sense to restrict driving more than gun ownership? I don't believe so.
* Edit: I want to be clear that I mean this in a perfectly literal sense. The only thing a bullet does on impact is destroy what it hits, regardless of whether what it hits was meant to be hit or not, or for what purpose it is being hit.
EDIT: The point of my last post, which you missed, is they shouldn't be allowed to even use the defense. I think the law is best decided as applicable by juries and judges, not by shooters and their lawyers. If you are truly standing your ground in self-defense, it should be crystal clear from your testimony.
When you live in a society, you tacitly agree to restrictions on your actions, generally for the safety and security of the rest of society. Don't like it? Go, start your own society. Have fun.
It's the reality that people THINK they can use SYG as a defense for their improper actions that makes me think the law is not a good one. In thinking they can use that as a defense, they are discharging their weapon at another human being with the intent to injure or kill that person. We're claiming SYG as a defense over petty disputes, like shooting someone for playing their music too loud at a gas station (which happened, IIRC, shortly after the Trayvon Martin shooting) or texting during a movie.
Are there legitimate SYG cases? Maybe a few. Sadly, most people just want it as an excuse to protect themselves for their own stupidity, which then pushes their stupidity onto the victim.
If that doesn't sound wrong to you, I question your humanity.
9909, THIS is one of the reasons we can't even start the discussion in the US. As soon as someone hints at the prospect of regulating guns even a little bit over the current mess of state regulations, the pro-gun crowd acts like that person wants to take every single gun away, even if that's not remotely near that person's actual stand on guns.
I believe we should start by actually enforcing the laws already on the books as they should be enforced. Then, we can determine if more is necessary. And it may well be. But we don't even have the will to enforce existing statutes.
That's why it will take successful litigation to produce changes that we may, in the end, be fully uncomfortable with.
It's already crazy. I have to take off belt and shoes and go through metal scans to get on a boat to go to Ellis Island, which is all tourist now.
The movie theaters can have rules saying "No guns allowed!" and they can post those signs. But if they're not actually doing anything to enforce it, why bother?
It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.
So no, I doubt being specific will help any. Thanks for trying.
bLatch, you really must be tons of fun at parties.