I'm going to have to stay up with this thread. I love to laugh, even though I don't do it much. Anyway, I think that all stand-ups (the good ones anyway), are philosophers, in their own right. Some better and deeper than others, but all philosophers nonetheless.

How in hell are you going to fight the War on Christmas if you can't afford the ammo?

It is funny how law does shape the mindset of the people. — Tobias

I feel remiss in not citing more of it. And when I say "it" I don't mean statutory or Constitutional, but judicial interpretations thereof. They are usually (not always) heavy on the philosophy, and well thought-out. Especially when it comes to the right to protest, seek redress, mingle, travel, etc. I only note this as a PSA for those who want to take a deeper dive into some good reading and philosophy about the actual location where the rubber meets the road. It gets better at the Federal Appellate and SCOTUS level.

My only point to you was that states violate the human rights they purport to protect. — NOS4A2

Individualists bring those violations upon themselves. And they deserve it.

Don't want a violation of human rights? Then don't violate the human rights of others. And support the state when it is trying to protect the victims of individualists who violate other people's human rights.

Otherwise, I will champion the state getting even heavier with it's hand. No one wants to go there. That's the parade of horribles, the slippery slope that is feared. Anyone who thinks the state is oppressive now, by asking people to distance, mask and vax, ain't seen nothing yet. And it will be all their fault. All of it. Don't want to play ball? Stay home. Or just wait till your father gets home.

(More paternalism for you, because I know that appeals to your sense of entitled victimhood)

Maybe he's just not worth talking about. — Baden

We sweep the likes of him under the rug at our peril. We should either deal with him or those who abused this poor boy.

most likely he's just a dumb kid with a gun and a distaste for lefties, one of many millions). — Baden

Which brings up another issue (maybe for another thread). It seems that 17 year old girls are "victims" of exploitation when they get all wrapped up in their own sexual exploitation. We go like rabid dogs after the adults who exploit them. Where were the adults in the Rittenhouse case?

If I were to be consistent, should I view him as a victim, or should I start viewing the girls as little tramps who now have regrets about decisions they made? Or is this apples and oranges?

Who's the Epstein in the Rittenhouse case?

To declare someone a racist without providing evidence for the claim is to make a libellous statement. — Michael Zwingli

For all of you people who don't know shit about America's current political division, how we got here and how virtually everything is related to it, you need to crawl out from under the rock and do yourself a little research. The only foolish thing is to try and view this incident as some isolated incident involving a child who made some bad mistakes. The evidence of what he was up to and thinking was plastered all over everywhere *except* the trial.

Just one of many:



Yeah, he's just flashing an "okay" sign. :roll: I stand by my previous assessment for which you took me to task. The truth has a liberal bias and I'll not run from that in an effort to appear "objective." Did you know Adolph Hitler didn't smoke, drink or cheat on his wife. He was actually just an innocent kid caught up on the moment. :roll:

How wrong you have it. If you "sacrifice" someone, you start with yourself. — ssu

:100: :fire: :up: :death:

Is that the referent's name? I'm not so well versed on the details here. — Michael Zwingli

He's an alleged child rapist. Like Trump is an alleged rapist. The only difference is, they are privileged, rich, politicians who made it on daddy's money, and have not and will not be convicted in a court of law.

Just in order to satisfy my lubricious interest, is there any truth to this...any evidence for such a characterization? — Michael Zwingli

I don't know, but you might ask Matt Gaetz.

All those people you mention have been met with state force, as far as I know. — NOS4A2

As far as I know (with the exceptions mentioned) they have not. On the other hand, they weren't selling cigarettes, sleeping, jogging, playing, or engaged in some other seditious activity, so there's that.

Why would they say that to the father and daughter? there was no violence or rioting or property damage occurring at the time they were exercising their rights. — NOS4A2

Oh, so they deputize kids where there is? Got it.

Curious question: do you know why the Dutch lost their right to bear arms? Have they ever had it? — NOS4A2

You don't lose rights. Rights are infringed.

One needs only look at the Black Panthers to show that the state, both federal and regional, will undermine the militia clause in particular, and the right in general, if it feels threatened by it. — NOS4A2

But for some curious reason it does not feel threatened by it when white people do it. Well, maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco. But not the Michigan State House, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Bundy's ranch, Unite the Right and Proud Boy rallies, and countless other examples. Hey, just out of curiosity, is this true:



Why is that? Did they say that to the black man and his daughter in the photo you put up?

Amen. The real deal. And that gun-nuts could kill the 2d amendment is irony no doubt they are incapable of appreciating. What they need collectively is play-pens and time-out chairs in corners. — tim wood

:100: :fire:

The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse assumed, wrongly, that Rittenhouse wouldn’t defend himself. He said “you won’t do shit” as he attacked him. He wasn’t deterred by the weapon. Boy, was he wrong. — NOS4A2

You like that, don't you? I bet you spank the monkey just thinking about it.

I don’t care how many arms people carry. If they don’t attack each other no one gets shot. — NOS4A2

You mean like Somalia? Or Afghanistan? Everyone carries and few people get shot. Well, except women.

And the picture goes against your race-thinking pundit. Everyone was cool with it. — NOS4A2

No, it does not. And not everyone was cool with it. Nor was that a unite the white right rally, now was it? And if "your side" doesn't riot, why not? Could it be they have nothing to riot about? Well, except maybe the full-frontal assault on Christmas.

Or how about if that couple showed up at the Michigan State House when all the white assholes were taking over? Or how about January 6th at the Capital? How about Ashli Babbitt? Maybe the cop should have stood down and let the left shoot her. Maybe the left should arm up and start confronting these shit-heads.

Here's the deal, NOS: I think you don't fully appreciate how good you have it. Your lack of grace and gratitude have been on display at least since I got here. It smacks of a soft, protected, isolated, dependent, entitled, privileged life that would not last two nano-seconds in a civil war. It's the classic sound of the chicken-hawk, all brave when it's not him or his on the line. God I hope you never have to see the end result of your thinking. Not because I care about you, but because I care about all the people who know better.

I'm a great champion of the Second Amendment, and not for hunting or personal defense against crime. I think the people should provide a substantial, credible threat to government, to keep it honest. But with that right, you don't do stupid shit like R did. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. In fact, it's a threat to the Second Amendment.

A recipe for escalation… it’s a nonsensical notion unless people start attacking the person carrying the gun. — NOS4A2

That photo is proof of my point. DOH!. What you are saying is what we used to call "MAD" or Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the very arms race I tried to describe to you. The fact that you would advocate it in your individualist, libertarian fantasy world shows you just how far you are from individualism and libertarianism. :roll:

Why would a legal system ascribe more blame to this scenario? — NOS4A2

To avoid an arms race. You know, where you, NOS, or your loved-ones, can still go the grocery store and not worry about getting blown up. Do you think you have what it takes to live in a combat zone? With your family?

I'm not black, so I can't pretend to understand why they don't escalate and start shooting whites. But I *suspect* it might have something to do with being a minority. They know that when whites start blowing up whites, one side of that equation is going to blame blacks, and then blacks will end up on the short end of the stick for something they did not do. So they don't want whites to start blowing up whites. I don't want it either.

But whites, like those in WI, did not bring rifles to what turned out to be a rifle fight. They have learned, now, that having a rifle is a good thing.

That is why a legal system should ascribe more blame to the scenario, where a pudgy little kid who doesn't even shave starts wandering around a riot zone with an AR and the cops don't do shit about it. It's a recipe for escalation. Just because you have a right does not mean you have no responsibility. That's why we should have adults in the room.

But hey, you make your bed. You can sleep in. Don't say you weren't warned. "May your children live in interesting times." Anon.

The verdict: When you boil it all down to the nut, here is what we find: Incentive for an arms race.

We have a saying in the U.S.: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." That would include fists, skateboards, or even handguns-against-rifles.

The counter to this would be: Don't bring a rifle to a riot, unless you are law enforcement, or you have to be there to protect your property (like the Korean Americans did in the L.A. riots; they stayed on their own property, too).

Because, if people start bringing rifles to riots, and if law enforcement stands idly by and does nothing about it, or even encourages it by taking sides, then rioters will start bringing rifles to riots. The arms race is on.

And the fault will lie squarely on the backs of law enforcement for failing to enforce the law. And by "law enforcement" I include judges who act like they are law enforcement.

If some people want to say that law enforcement has already failed to enforce the law with respect to the rioters, and thus we must arm-up and suppress the riots ourselves, and if those riots are themselves the result of the actions of law enforcement acting unlawfully, and the system letting them walk, then the civil war is on. Law enforcement will have taken a side against the people.

Arms race? Have any of you people ever heard of I.E.D.s? Insurgency? Snipers? Poison? Etc.? Can you imagine what it would be like to try to go to the grocery to buy milk in such an environment?

And here's the deal: Foreign bad actors (Russia?) and others will have all the incentive in the world to throw gas on the fire, provide aid and comfort *to both sides*. Some, like myself, suspect this has already happened and is happening. America is divided against itself and such a house cannot stand.

We better get our shit together. And I mean now. So I say again, leadership and law enforcement, particularly the POTUS, the FBI, and the DOJ: We are watching. Unite us. Be a Lincoln, not a Trump.

P.S. For all the children out there: If you don't want to escalate, and if you support law enforcement, then get the training and become a cop, or stay out of the battle space.

Is it a common ploy of yours to rehash what I write into language that comforts you? — NOS4A2

You mean correct your mistakes? Yeah, I'm good with that.

It’s been a few times now that you’ve done it, that I have to stop reading as soon as I notice it. You’re a good writer, James, and you should use your gift, even if it’s in service to state power. — NOS4A2

You're the good writer. I'm just rehashing your writing to correct mistakes. Maybe I should be an editor? I missed my calling.

Just be happy you can now go to the zoo, jump in the polar bear cage and gun them down if they attack you. Ahmaud Arbery confronted and tried to disarm his attacker too. In WI, his killers would walk free.

The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. — NOS4A2

Back in the old days we used to have a Fourth Estate that would help uncover all that. But people who think like you took their ill-gotten gains, bought the Fourth Estate, and cranked up all of the things you lament. They sacrificed many individuals to their Plutocratic objectives, ruining the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. They divided it, fracture it, subordinated most of it. So any talk of “individual objectives” over the collective is a ruse designed to disguise that you would subordinate others to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of a free society. Just come out and say it. You are a tool for those who stole the tool. They did it all with your aid, abetting and comforting.

Jesse Cook, from LinkedIn:

"45 years ago on Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 1976, The Band performs its final concert, ‘The Last Waltz,’ at San Francisco's Winterland before an audience of 5,000 who were treated to turkey dinner, an amazing playlist, and a star-studded show that included appearances by Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Ringo Starr, Emmylou Harris, Muddy Waters, Ronnie Hawkins, and Neil Diamond. Director Martin Scorsese filmed the concert and made it into a documentary released in 1978. In 2019, ‘The Last Waltz’ was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for The Band’s version of ‘When I Paint My Masterpiece.’ I don’t know what Bob Dylan intended when he wrote the song, but to me, it uniquely explores the difference between where we are and where we think we should be. Our present condition is portrayed as a bumbling tourist “sailing ‘round the world in a dirty gondola” while our greatest potential will be achieved only after “I paint my masterpiece,” some amorphous, maybe-it-will-happen-maybe-it-won’t type of fantasy. Underscoring the feeling of longingness and separation is the narrator’s presence on this great adventure in Rome and Brussels, yet he is wishing he was “back in the land of Coca-Cola” and thinking about “someday” when “everything is gonna be diff’rent” and “everything is gonna sound like a rhapsody” when I paint my masterpiece.

This holiday, I’m wishing you a Thanksgiving where you are neither dodging lions nor wasting time and are instead perfectly content as the masterpiece you already are."

Jesse Cook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2e7DPhyHg

I'd like to see a pic. — Caldwell

I'd show you one or two, but I can't upload from the puter. Has to be another web site. :grin:

You didn’t deliver. The United States did not form to protect rights, — NOS4A2

I did deliver and you can't read worth a shit. Where, in any organic document of the U.S. does it saying anything like "seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends." It doesn't. Does it? No. Learn how to read.

Every ideal you claim the American state has was violated by the American state. — NOS4A2

I don't claim it. It's right there in black and white for anyone who knows how to read. The American state didn't violate shit. It was those human beings who think like you who wielded the tool who violated the tool.

This is because ideals belong to individuals, not states. — NOS4A2

That's a false dichotomy. The ideals belong to both. It's the individuals who fucked it up.

And the moment individuals with these ideals wield your tool, they violate those ideals. — NOS4A2

Bingo! Now you are catching on. They are individuals like you, who blame the tool, and the ideals, instead of the thieves who stole it.

The preside over institutions designed to protect their right to do so. — NOS4A2

No. Those ideals in institutions were not designed to fuck people. That would be people. You are confused. But people want you to be confused. They want the sheep to blame the tool. DOH!

I have loved music for most of my life and, this is probably true of most people, and I have never learned to play and instrument, so this thread is coming from the angle of appreciation. — Jack Cummins

I resemble that remark. I think I've read or heard other folks, smarter than me, who have opined that music plays the sound track of our lives. When we are young, and our hormones are raging, the music in the back ground (or blaring in the foreground) will imprint itself upon us. If it has been remembered, from our formative years, then it did not ruin the memory or the song. Even if the memory or the song are sad or bad.

Compare: If I hear a favorite song, from back in the day, used to hawk a fucking product, then that song can be forever ruined. The shit they want to sell me is not mine, their marketing is not mine, and their picking one of my favorite song in an effort to appeal to me is a big fucking fail. But maybe they aren't going after me. Maybe they are turning a new generation on to a bad thing with a good thing. I'd hate to see some kid equating the Animals rendition of The House of the Rising Sun with a fucking widget.

End rant.

"Soulmates" betray, domestically violate and divorce each other every day. — 180 Proof

The quotation marks are appropriate. :wink: True Scotsman and all that.

Okay, so you prove you cannot read. You asked if any state had come about to protects rights. I delivered. You then again attack the tool created instead of the people who took it (people who rely upon people like you to disparage the tool instead of them).

As we have repeatedly taught you (and you have repeatedly failed to learn) the state is not and does not claim to be flawless. It's just better than what would be in the absence of it. You have been called upon to prove otherwise and you have failed. Not because you have not tried; but because it cannot be done. It cannot be done because you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. However, if you want to talk metaphysics, or unicorn Libertarian fantasy land, fine. But even there, you are defeated by fantasy.

Our founding fathers owned slaves. They oppressed Indians. The U.S. is not ideal. But it has ideals. Like your fantasy. And it has done more to achieve it than all the whining in the world.

Do you have any examples of a state that has came about to protect the rights of its subjects? — NOS4A2

Not subjects. No. Citizens, yes. Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence. No, seriously, go read it. I would post it for you here, but I want you to google it yourself and then read it. It's not very long, really. Then, when you are done, you can read the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bills of rights don’t come about because centralized government is the best protector of them, but because they are the worst violators of them. — NOS4A2

That's simply not true. Centralized government comes about because the absence of them is the worst violator. Then, to check the centralized government, the Bills are created. Again, that is why you are personally so much better off than you otherwise would be. First, .gov protects you from me. Then it protects you from it.

Well, applying/teaching non-biased behavior is definitely a start. I would add that we need to identify conflict of interest when we talk about discussions, and if a conflict of interest appears within the interviewer/interviewee(anybody who's relaying information) they should be temporarily exiled from the topic. I wouldn't want someone defending a topic just because it makes him more money, I want someone to defend a topic because it's actually something he's invested in. — john27

I think there is a relevant distinction between bias and conflict of interest. The truth has a definite bias which should not be tempered by mediocrity or splitting the baby. But yes, conflict of interest should be, at the very least, transparent. Some folks get paid for that which they are invested in, and we might ought to know that. But I wouldn't kick them out just because they get paid to do science or whatever.

When Stars Came Down to Earth, Cosmology of the Skidi Pawnee Indians of North America, by Von Del Chamberlain.

Second time through. Last time was about 20 year ago and I wasn't paying attention.

I want my kids to surpass me, in every respect. Learn everything I know, go forth, learn more and do more. Then come back for coffee and explain where I got things wrong, and, more importantly, why they are wrong.

Bloody inconsiderate wanting my kids to be just like me. Many days I don't want to be just like me. — Book273

I know, right? I often wonder about all the folks from my generation that complain about the generation they made. Somehow it's always someone else's fault. One of my favorite memes says something to the effect "If you want someone else to suffer because you suffered and you turned out all right, guess what? You didn't turn out all right."

I swear, I want to raise an eyebrow when I see a kid with his pant around his knees, listening to whatever. But I remember my hair and bell-bottoms and cowboy hat and chew and Hendrix and Hank.

When it is up for discussion, anyone that brings up anything other than the lawn shitting should be removed from the conversation, as no other aspect is actually relevant and detracts from the conversation, and the subsequent solution. — Book273

But wait, what if I can film it and put it up on the web and it goes viral and I get a bunch of hits and make even more money! Don't be a turd burglar Book. Let me make some money before you solve the "problem."

How do you think we could improve/sustain knowledge translation so that it's relayed in a simple, non-biased manner? — john27

Teach Liberal Arts in school. Start at kindergarten and carry through the next 16 + years. Make a virtue of necessity by using the written word. (It's like the blind trials on "The Voice". If you can't see how ugly the person is, you can focus on their voice.) If you can't see the emotive clown dancing around on T.V. then you can focus on his thoughts. If you can't hear the emotive clown yelling on the radio, then you can focus on his thoughts. If his thoughts are illogical shit, then you can dissect them. But if he went to school steeped in Liberal Arts, then his thoughts are less likely to be shit.

The problem is, mom and dad hate it when little Billy and Sally come home from school and roll their socks in argument at the dinner table. So they don't vote for the mill levy to support the school. Because they want their kids to be like them. And anyone who doesn't think like them is a commie libtard. They don't really want a better life for their kids.

But a real parent is not afraid to learn from the kid and engage him, and school him with the wisdom of life experience. That takes love and patience. But fuck that. A new F-350 pick up is better.

Exactly. If it is not entertaining, and especially if it makes people question existential deep topics, and especially if it might lead people away from the current business as usual, it will be ignored. — schopenhauer1

They want good little consumers and producers. Not thinkers. Hell, if they wanted thinkers then they'd teach thinking in school.

I wanna know a lot of shit. But in the middle of a firefight, I'll belay my curiosity, default to the veteran, and try not get myself or my buddy killed. If the veteran say's "Shoot the virus" then I'll shoot the SOB.

When I hear "I want to know" coming from someone who doesn't really want to know, because he/she is not in a lab coat trying to figure it out, then I figure they are with the virus. If they are searching the internet for their information, then they are part of the problem.

Anyone who sincerely wants to know will pay attention in science class next time.

Yes, I’d rather not wield the tool. — NOS4A2

Cool. Those who do wo wield it are happy with your decision.

I’d rather not. — NOS4A2

Rather not what? Wield the tool?

My bet is, only if it is involved in some incident that puts it in a bad light.. Then it will just be discussed because of a red herring incident unrelated to the actual philosophies at hand. — schopenhauer1

I think you are right. The media itself has a vested interest in marginalizing those causes because they hurt their bottom line/advertising, etc. Any incident will get a by-line and swept under the rug. If John Brown were alive today, he'd get a resounding "Meh" and then we'd move on.

Government is just a tool. If you don't like how it is being used, then wield it yourself. It is strange how you would turn over control of the tool to those who wield it against you. Maybe you are like Gandhi, and believe that if you lay down the gun, no one else will use it. Maybe it will go away.

Is it that the topic of structural racism is being pushed, or is it market tested as the best ratings? What is wagging what here? — schopenhauer1

It's not real. But when we venerate critical thinking without analytic thinking, we get dummies gravitating toward the word "critical." When we use the word "race", there is a trigger there for the insecure. And of course, when we use the word "theory", those who don't understand what a theory is (evolution) will jump on it critically as mere non-racist opinion.

In other words, those same people we talked about above ($/ratings) don't care one way or the other. They just know it will fire up the dummies. The agent provocateurs in marketing probably search the interwebs for the spitballing of wags, steal their work, and feed it to the clowns to run with it. We know Tucker Carlson is not smart enough to dream up an attack on his own. There are rooms full of little conservative members of the Federalist Society, sitting around drinking beer and laughing like comedians working up a skit/routine and then feeding it to their bosses who hand it off to Tucker. Someone like an AT&T board member is behind the scenes, providing the payroll for the kids, or even funding their education.