In Light of the Zimmerman Verdict, a Modest Proposal

[elder999]

Understand, this isn’t really about the Zimmerman verdict at all-or gun control. It’s only remotely related to “stand your ground doctrine,” something I agree with in principle, though not in some applications (New York has no “self-defense” law, per se, but manages to mostly not send people to jail for defending themselves, like every other state, I suppose….) what this is about is civility

There’s a lot of moaning about the lack of civility in society today-in traffic, in political discourse, in the media, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I think it’s a byproduct of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment, and our ready-made media society: when you can broadcast your opinion to the world on Facebook, or Twitter, or Martial Talk, you begin to think (apropos of this post, don’t forget) that everyone is entitled to it, whether they want it or not. So it’s blah, blah, blah,abortion on Facebook, and blah, blah, blah, gun control here.

Well, I might be entitled to your opinion. You might be entitled to express it. I might even be, occasionally, entitled to my own opinion, but I think a return to civility might be in order. In spite of my snarkiness, I miss informed debate, supported by facts, and I miss polite discourse. I long for the days when people could disagree without some sort of scorched earth, take no prisoners rule of engagement.

I also miss the days when idiots knew to keep their idiotic opinions to themselves.

There was a time when morons knew they were morons. Knew they had no business thinking about things like global warming-or anything scientific-never mind offering opinions as gospel. Knew they had no place in a discussion about the viability of the fetus, or abortion, especially if they were men. Knew they should just, well…….sit back and have a nice warm cup of STFU.
Those days are about gone, of course, but we can bring them back. George Zimmerman has shown us the way. I propose a return to the code duello-to a simpler time when people knew enough to be polite to the other guy, because if they weren’t, well……the other guy might kill them. :lfao:

While thou livest, keep a good tongue in thy head-William Shakespeare

"The code preserved a dignity, justice and decorum that have since been lost…to the great detriment of the professions, the public and the government. The present generation will think me barbarous but I believe that some lives lost in protecting the tone of the bar and the press, on which the Republic itself so largely depends, are well spent."
- Charles Gibson

That quote is taken from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a pretty serious history of the Lincoln cabinet, and a very serious study of the nature of politics. Prior to the eloquent words of Gibson, Goodwin writes, "Years later, reflecting on the Southern "Code" of dueling, Bates's friend Charles Gibson maintained that as wicked as the code was, the vulgar public behavior following the demise of the practice was worse still." I don't think anyone can argue against the last sentiment given the putrid waste found on any news network…..

Seriously. Do you think Rush Limbaugh would still be wasting air if he could have been challenged-if even Sandra Fluke had been able to challenge him for calling her a “slut?” Do you think Olbermann would have lasted nearly as long on MSNBC if he could be legitimately shot (or stabbed, or beaten to death) for the bloviations that emanated from his vacuous pie-hole? He’d still be on ESPN, and Limbaugh would still be addicted to Oxy….:lfao:

Seriously. Here's what I propose: let’s make idiocy a criminal offense-let’s extend “stand your ground” to “ clear your airspace.”

First off, let's kill all the idiots.-el Brujo de la Cueva (that's me!! :lfao: )

Next time I hear some moron talking about how there is no global warming, I stab them in the eye. Think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose? Well, go right ahead, but the minute you call a 3 month old fetus a “child,” I’m bashing your head in with a rock.

Tell me one more time about the wonders of the mythical-with powers rivaled only by the unicorn-“free market economy,” and I’m gonna force feed you 20 lbs, of nickels, stab you in the chest, and drop you off of a bridge.

I suppose, of course, this isn’t very……civil…of me, but consider the service that’s being done: within a year of this, there’d be far, far less idiots around-I mean, let’s face it, who’s going to express such folderol, other than idiots? :lfao:

Sure. If one idiot can shoot another because of his own idiocy…..(I mean, in an ideal world, George Zimmerman would have offered the kid a ride home in the rain. Bet he wishes he could have done that, but still…..following him was pretty idiotic) it stands to reason that those of us who choose to go about armed can shoot idiots….after prudently and judiciously determining their idiocy is worthy of death, anyway……:lfao:

 

[jks9199]

I propose a return to the code duello-to a simpler time when people knew enough to be polite to the other guy, because if they weren’t, well……the other guy might kill them. :lfao:
....

Next time I hear some moron talking about how there is no global warming, I stab them in the eye. Think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose? Well, go right ahead, but the minute you call a 3 month old fetus a “child,” I’m bashing your head in with a rock.

Tell me one more time about the wonders of the mythical-with powers rivaled only by the unicorn-“free market economy,” and I’m gonna force feed you 20 lbs, of nickels, stab you in the chest, and drop you off of a bridge.

Of course, code duello does include the proviso that the idiot just might kill you, too...

 

[ballen0351]

Of course, code duello does include the proviso that the idiot just might kill you, too...

There is always a bigger bladder idiot then you out there

 

[Big Don]

First off, let's kill all the idiots

You can't do that, you would nearly depopulate the planet...

 

[granfire]

You can't do that, you would nearly depopulate the planet...

and that would be a bad thing?

 

[granfire]

Understand, this isn’t really about the Zimmerman verdict at all-or gun control. It’s only remotely related to “stand your ground doctrine,” something I agree with in principle, though not in some applications (New York has no “self-defense” law, per se, but manages to mostly not send people to jail for defending themselves, like every other state, I suppose….) what this is about is civility

There’s a lot of moaning about the lack of civility in society today-in traffic, in political discourse, in the media, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I think it’s a byproduct of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment, and our ready-made media society: when you can broadcast your opinion to the world on Facebook, or Twitter, or Martial Talk, you begin to think (apropos of this post, don’t forget) that everyone is entitled to it, whether they want it or not. So it’s blah, blah, blah,abortion on Facebook, and blah, blah, blah, gun control here.

Well, I might be entitled to your opinion. You might be entitled to express it. I might even be, occasionally, entitled to my own opinion, but I think a return to civility might be in order. In spite of my snarkiness, I miss informed debate, supported by facts, and I miss polite discourse. I long for the days when people could disagree without some sort of scorched earth, take no prisoners rule of engagement.

I also miss the days when idiots knew to keep their idiotic opinions to themselves.

There was a time when morons knew they were morons. Knew they had no business thinking about things like global warming-or anything scientific-never mind offering opinions as gospel. Knew they had no place in a discussion about the viability of the fetus, or abortion, especially if they were men. Knew they should just, well…….sit back and have a nice warm cup of STFU.
Those days are about gone, of course, but we can bring them back. George Zimmerman has shown us the way. I propose a return to the code duello-to a simpler time when people knew enough to be polite to the other guy, because if they weren’t, well……the other guy might kill them. :lfao:





That quote is taken from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a pretty serious history of the Lincoln cabinet, and a very serious study of the nature of politics. Prior to the eloquent words of Gibson, Goodwin writes, "Years later, reflecting on the Southern "Code" of dueling, Bates's friend Charles Gibson maintained that as wicked as the code was, the vulgar public behavior following the demise of the practice was worse still." I don't think anyone can argue against the last sentiment given the putrid waste found on any news network…..

Seriously. Do you think Rush Limbaugh would still be wasting air if he could have been challenged-if even Sandra Fluke had been able to challenge him for calling her a “slut?” Do you think Olbermann would have lasted nearly as long on MSNBC if he could be legitimately shot (or stabbed, or beaten to death) for the bloviations that emanated from his vacuous pie-hole? He’d still be on ESPN, and Limbaugh would still be addicted to Oxy….:lfao:

Seriously. Here's what I propose: let’s make idiocy a criminal offense-let’s extend “stand your ground” to “ clear your airspace.”



Next time I hear some moron talking about how there is no global warming, I stab them in the eye. Think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose? Well, go right ahead, but the minute you call a 3 month old fetus a “child,” I’m bashing your head in with a rock.

Tell me one more time about the wonders of the mythical-with powers rivaled only by the unicorn-“free market economy,” and I’m gonna force feed you 20 lbs, of nickels, stab you in the chest, and drop you off of a bridge.

I suppose, of course, this isn’t very……civil…of me, but consider the service that’s being done: within a year of this, there’d be far, far less idiots around-I mean, let’s face it, who’s going to express such folderol, other than idiots? :lfao:

Sure. If one idiot can shoot another because of his own idiocy…..(I mean, in an ideal world, George Zimmerman would have offered the kid a ride home in the rain. Bet he wishes he could have done that, but still…..following him was pretty idiotic) it stands to reason that those of us who choose to go about armed can shoot idiots….after prudently and judiciously determining their idiocy is worthy of death, anyway……:lfao:

So you are proposing we enforce Darwin's law?

 

[Tgace]

Funny how nobdoy thinks THEY are the idiot.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

I see what you did there..."let's return to civil discourse", unless you disagree with global warming or abortion. Then you are an "idiot".

Can I use the same rationale for people who debate police policy and procedure?

I also dont buy the "golden age" bit about the days when people with no knowledge kept their mouths shut.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

Funny how nobdoy thinks THEY are the idiot.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

I know I am an idiot plenty of times

But I usually also know to keep my mouth shut at that time....

 

[Steve]

I am all for a return to civility. I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.

But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else. For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby. I recognize that for others, the opposite is true. If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.

At the same time, we must all acknowledge facts to be just that, and be intellectually honest enough to honor facts as indisputable, and wise enough to distinguish a fact from an interpretation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

I am all for a return to civility. I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.

But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else. For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby. I recognize that for others, the opposite is true. If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.

At the same time, we must all acknowledge facts to be just that, and be intellectually honest enough to honor facts as indisputable, and wise enough to distinguish a fact from an interpretation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

"Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".

As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr

 

[Steve]

"Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".

As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr

Is that a fact?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[granfire]

You guys don't have the sense G-D gave turnip!


:angel:





:lol:

:lfao:

 

[elder999]

"Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".

As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr

Nah, I should have waited until I was more awake-it's a feeble attempt at satire.

Of course, I really do feel this way, but I'd have been deaded long ago if it were to be.....:lfao:

 

[elder999]

I am all for a return to civility. I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.

But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else. For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby. I recognize that for others, the opposite is true. If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.

At the same time, we must all acknowledge facts to be just that, and be intellectually honest enough to honor facts as indisputable, and wise enough to distinguish a fact from an interpretation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well, and then there's that 68 degree rule again-it's not facts or their interpretation that gets people into conflict. It's truths, which, while just as immutable as facts, are hardly the same for everyone. Things like: right, just, belief, and, yes, sadly, even opinion become one's truth-and nearly as set in stone and immutable as fact.

In fact, some are going to insist that they are the same thing-that for a thing to be "true" it has to be "fact."

Of course, I'd never kill anyone for their facts. In my imagination, though, I've already killed hundreds for their "truth." :lfao:

 

[ballen0351]

Once you people realize that I know what's best for us all and start listening to me things will be a lot smoother for everyone

 

[elder999]

Once you people realize that I know what's best for us all and start listening to me things will be a lot smoother for everyone

Once these new rules are instituted, you'd be smart to make sure no one-especially me- ever has to hear you again, never mind "listen." :lfao:

 

[ballen0351]

Once these new rules are instituted, you'd be smart to make sure no one-especially me- ever has to hear you again, never mind "listen." :lfao:

Don't worry there's a special place already picked out for the ones that need special training. Its called Canada

 

[jks9199]

I am all for a return to civility. I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.

But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else. For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby. I recognize that for others, the opposite is true. If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.

At the same time, we must all acknowledge facts to be just that, and be intellectually honest enough to honor facts as indisputable, and wise enough to distinguish a fact from an interpretation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's also important to realize there's a difference between having the facts and having the understanding to interpret the facts. And that expertise in one area does not equal expertise in all areas. Look at the range of engineers of various stripes and PhDs who are sure that there were charges in the Twin Towers -- despite what the structural engineers who actually know what they're talking about say... Or scientists of all sorts --except climatologists -- that have a firm opinion one way or the other on anthropogenic global warning.

 

[elder999]

It's also important to realize there's a difference between having the facts and having the understanding to interpret the facts. And that expertise in one area does not equal expertise in all areas. Look at the range of engineers of various stripes and PhDs who are sure that there were charges in the Twin Towers -- despite what the structural engineers who actually know what they're talking about say... Or scientists of all sorts --except climatologists -- that have a firm opinion one way or the other on anthropogenic global warning.

.....and you should just see the mental gymnastics entire platoons of qualified Christian scientists of various disciplines go through to reconcile the Genesis creation myth with known science. :lfao: