Looting in New Orleans

[sweetdaisy]

Please explain to me how I am not being open-minded? Because I think the "shoot first" position is reactionary at best, I am now closed minded?

If you will reread my post, I was indicating that some people are choosing to make a joke here and there to blow off steam. You not stopping realize that is why I question your open-mindedness. Jumping in to tell someone how wrong they are is also reactionary, at best.

[Didaskalos]

I don't know how this thread turned into advocating killing people for taking food and water or even stereos for that matter. I think we all know that none of here would ever condone that.

I think if you will go back to page one, that is exactly what was being suggested. In order to "set the example now". The discussion seemed to come to a reasonable agreement, a post was made that talked about the escalating violence everyone agreed and then all of a sudden an interjection about "due process" for rapists when all discussion of due process had nothing to do with rape or murder previously. All of a sudden, there were crazy nut jobs defending the rapists (never actually read one of these posts myself) but they must have been there from all of the reaction.

Speaking for myself, I defend those who have to do what they have to do to survive during this time but I won't support or defend murderers and rapists who are impeding the government's ability to help those in dire need.

Absolutely agree. The first part agrees with my sentiment from the beginning and I couldn't agree more about the second part of your sentence.

[PUGalicious]

If you will reread my post, I was indicating that some people are choosing to make a joke here and there to blow off steam. You not stopping realize that is why I question your open-mindedness. Jumping in to tell someone how wrong they are is also reactionary, at best.

It didn't necessarily sound like a joke. And often, even if it was a joke, there's enough "truth" or true feelings wrapped up in the "joke" that it will prompt a reaction by those alarmed by either the joke itself or the true feelings it potentially represents.

By definition, a discussion or debate is reactionary.

And, I see nothing that calls into question Didaskalos' open-mindedness simply because he reacted to a "joke."

[Didaskalos]

If you will reread my post, I was indicating that some people are choosing to make a joke here and there to blow off steam. You not stopping realize that is why I question your open-mindedness. Jumping in to tell someone how wrong they are is also reactionary, at best.

Perhaps a game of semantics but that would seem to be more of a 'what is humerous' issue (as opposed to open mindedness). You are right on the money though, I don't see the humor in suggesting that people who believe in the 5th amendment want to protect rapists in New Orleans. Some might find that offensive (but I am sure just the closed minded ones).

[sweetdaisy]

Oops. Meant to add that I appreciate your explanation on your feelings in this matter, Didaskalos. Scribe, I also appreciate your feedback.

I will say, I never intended to put words in anyone's mouths. I'm trying to fully understand your point of view and what you are saying and I do so by asking questions.

I will say that you both are also guilty of putting words into other people's mouths, though. (Read post regarding shredding the Bill of Rights and "trigger-happy, simple-minded vigilantes comment. they are both a little overboard.) Please stop pointing fingers.

[PUGalicious]

Please stop pointing fingers.

[sweetdaisy]

It didn't necessarily sound like a joke. And often, even if it was a joke, there's enough "truth" or true feelings wrapped up in the "joke" that it will prompt a reaction by those alarmed by either the joke itself or the true feelings it potentially represents.

By definition, a discussion or debate is reactionary.

And, I see nothing that calls into question Didaskalos' open-mindedness simply because he reacted to a "joke."

What part of the "LOL!" was hard to distinguish as being a joke? Saying "what about due process?" following it with indicates it's a joke.

It's okay to find humor in things.

[PUGalicious]

It was meant as a jab against those who value constitutional protections, even if it was guised in a "joke" followed by LOL's.

Some things aren't glib or laughing matters, like shooting people.

[Didaskalos]

If you will reread my post, I was indicating that some people are choosing to make a joke here and there to blow off steam. You not stopping realize that is why I question your open-mindedness.

Ok, I am losing my sense of humor apparently because I got the impression some of the posters actually believed in what they were presenting.

Would any of the previous posters like to clear up my confusion? The support of shooting looters was a joke or an honest attempt to address the escalating problem?

[PUGalicious]

I will say that you both are also guilty of putting words into other people's mouths, though. (Read post regarding shredding the Bill of Rights and "trigger-happy, simple-minded vigilantes comment. they are both a little overboard.) Please stop pointing fingers.

I've gone back and re-read the post you are referring to. What words did I put in someone's mouth?

[Didaskalos]

I will say that you both are also guilty of putting words into other people's mouths, though. (Read post regarding shredding the Bill of Rights and "trigger-happy, simple-minded vigilantes comment. they are both a little overboard.) Please stop pointing fingers.

Can you point me back to the post where I put works in other people's mouths? I too use jokes (sometimes sarcastically to make a point) but I don't remember putting words into anyone's mouth.

If you will point me back to the post, I will be happy to rectify.

[sweetdaisy]

It was meant as a jab against those who value constitutional protections, even if it was guised in a "joke" followed by LOL's.

Some things aren't glib or laughing matters, like shooting people.

Well, here's a perfect example of you putting words into people's mouths. You don't know WHAT my intention was on this post. I meant it as a joke, pure and simple. A little comic relief. But, just like every other thread, YOU are right again. Sheesh.

Making the assumption that you know what everyone else's intentions are is a pretty dangerous thing.

I'm so sorry if it offended you so badly. :surrender

[PUGalicious]

If I made an unfair assumption, I apologize. I made the assumption on the totality of your posts in the thread. I, on this rare circumstance, didn't see the humor in that. And that's my fault.

And for the record, I was not offended. I just didn't find the humor in that "joke."

P.S. Nice extra jab... "But, just like every other thread, YOU are right again. Sheesh." You're not really sorry at all, so don't pretend to be.

[sweetdaisy]

Can you point me back to the post where I put works in other people's mouths? I too use jokes (sometimes sarcastically to make a point) but I don't remember putting words into anyone's mouth.

If you will point me back to the post, I will be happy to rectify.

You said let's shred the Bill of Rights based on something Dungeon Master posted. Twisting his words to indicate that is his intent. And, I guess it's not exactly putting words in his mouth, but rather manipulating his statement.

Perhaps, that was you using sarcastic humor to make a point.

[sweetdaisy]

If I made an unfair assumption, I apologize. I made the assumption on the totality of your posts in the thread. I, on this rare circumstance, didn't see the humor in that. And that's my fault.

And for the record, I was not offended. I just didn't find the humor in that "joke."

P.S. Nice extra jab... "But, just like every other thread, YOU are right again. Sheesh." You're not really sorry at all, so don't pretend to be.

The totality of my posts on this thread indicated that I would shoot someone if they intended to do me harm. Especially if I was in the situation that was occuring in New Orleans. However, I could see you not finding humor in my little statement about due process. And for that, I truly am sorry.

Your badgering about my intention is what led to the last statement. And just because I feel that way doesn't mean I'm not sorry I offended with what I thought was funny.

[Didaskalos]

You said let's shred the Bill of Rights based on something Dungeon Master posted. Twisting his words to indicate that is his intent. And, I guess it's not exactly putting words in his mouth, but rather manipulating his statement.

Perhaps, that was you using sarcastic humor to make a point.

It was actually a response to mariner62. But hey, you recognized the sarcasm, you must be better at this than I am.

The point... to clarify (or try to rectify) was that mariner62 had posted the following "Thank GOD for the NRA, I am a proud member and proud to be able to own my firearms, and happy I have the right to carry." Clearly a reference to the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Yet many in the thread (and my response was not directed at any single poster but rather a collective idea) felt that the 5th amendment right to due process was somehow suspended because a hurricane hit. I just don't see how we get to pick and choose which of our "Rights" guraranteed under the consitution apply in different situations. Shred might be harsh but it was an attempt at sarcasm and hyperbole to make the point.

Was this offensive to you or should I apoligize to the whole thread for using hyperbole in a response not directed at a single person?

[PUGalicious]

The totality of my posts on this thread indicated that I would shoot someone if they intended to do me harm. Especially if I was in the situation that was occuring in New Orleans. However, I could see you not finding humor in my little statement about due process. And for that, I truly am sorry.

Your badgering about my intention is what led to the last statement. And just because I feel that way doesn't mean I'm not sorry I offended with what I thought was funny.

I apologize, sincerely, for badgering you about your intention. Perhaps the totality of the thread fed my skeptcism and/or cynicism toward posts treating "due process" glibly. I apologize for making unfair assumptions. I will, in the future, take your posts at face value and inquire about your intentions when in doubt.

[sweetdaisy]

Was this offensive to you or should I apoligize to the whole thread for using hyperbole in a response not directed at a single person?

See? This is a comment I found quite funny. No apologies are necessary!! I like the sarcasm of it.

I was simply making a point that I should not be singled out and accused of unintentionally doing something while others were doing the same thing.

Also, thanks for clarifying that the original statement was from mariner. I didn't have the energy to go back and find the post...again.

[Didaskalos]

The totality of my posts on this thread indicated that I would shoot someone if they intended to do me harm. Especially if I was in the situation that was occuring in New Orleans. However, I could see you not finding humor in my little statement about due process. And for that, I truly am sorry.

It was not your post regarding due process that was not humurous. It was suggestions made throughout the thread that looters have no rights and should be shot on site.

I think your humurous post was unfortunate in that it made an unncessary link between due process and stopping rapists. This way you put me (as I was defending due process) in a place where it appears I am defending rapists (which you will clearly find I have never done).

I am sure others on the thread got a good chuckle but I must ask, why after reading an opinion about due process and then the discussion moving to voilence and rape did you make the bridge to the due process joke? What makes it funny if not that there are softy liberals willing to protect rapists by exploiting the law? I got that you were making a joke.

[sweetdaisy]

I am sure others on the thread got a good chuckle but I must ask, why after reading an opinion about due process and then the discussion moving to voilence and rape did you make the bridge to the due process joke? What makes it funny if not that there are softy liberals willing to protect rapists by exploiting the law? I got that you were making a joke.

Fair question. Apparently, my timing is not the best. Or I just have very bad humor (which is more likely the case). Again, sorry that it wasn't funny. Heck, sorry I even posted it.

:surrender

[Didaskalos]

Fair question. Apparently, my timing is not the best. Or I just have very bad humor (which is more likely the case). Again, sorry that it wasn't funny. Heck, sorry I even posted it.

:surrender

No reason to apologize to me. Thanks for the discussion. In the end, you are the one still posting so it has to say something for your open-mindedness.

[PUGalicious]

Side note: For someone who says he was done with the thread, he spends alot of time viewing it... eh Dungeon Master?

[Karried]

I can only imagine what we would all do to one another if placed in this situation - from the looks of our recent posts, it wouldn't be pretty!

Here's an idea....Let's spend our energy on thinking of ways to help the refugees instead of ways to take out the snipers ...

[PUGalicious]

I can only imagine what we would all do to one another if placed in this situation - from the looks of our recent posts, it wouldn't be pretty!

Here's an idea....Let's spend our energy on thinking of ways to help the refugees instead of ways to take out the snipers ...

Agreed.

[sweetdaisy]

Disclaimer: BAD "JOKE" TO FOLLOW

Y'know, Karried, I blame the looters. See what they've done to our sense of community here?


BTW, does anyone know of any volunteer needs around here to help the hurricane victims? I looked online last nite, but everyone just wants money. I don't have any of that.