It ok to put a bullet in a persons skull, but not ok if you can't fix your computer??

[foghorn]

OH my fucking god. Aren't you the guy who couldn't even figure out how to change the settings on your own freakin computer?

And, that is suppose to make you look ‘right’ in advocating putting bullets in peoples skulls you disagree with.
You are some mixed up person.

 

[parmalee]

And, that is suppose to make you look ‘right’ in advocating putting bullets in peoples skulls you disagree with.
You are some mixed up person.

If you actually knew how to read you would see that I provided the justification for my assertion:

Such persons are dangerous, antisocial, legitimate existential threats, and they ought be treated accordingly--and I can guarantee you that a lot of people will suffer and/or die needlessly as a consequence of eliminating or disrupting the administrative state. That's my justification for such an assertion.

(Emphasis added.)

In fact, you even quoted that passage.

I could also add here that I've got distant relatives who were disappeared and/or exterminated because someone didn't have the foresight to consider all the options.

Again, take your meds and consider a course in adult literacy.

 

[TheVat]

I can't justify political murder and my impression is that murdering bad (corrupt, amoral, destructive) politicians only increases their number - there are a few exceptions perhaps, but mostly it's like cutting heads off the Hydra. Public disgrace seems likely to work better. Also, using murder as an instrument of policy reform tends to be habit-forming and move the Overton Window in a bad direction for democracies.

 

[parmalee]

I can't justify political murder and my impression is that murdering bad (corrupt, amoral, destructive) politicians only increases their number - there are a few exceptions perhaps, but mostly it's like cutting heads off the Hydra. Public disgrace seems likely to work better. Also, using murder as an instrument of policy reform tends to be habit-forming and move the Overton Window in a bad direction for democracies.

I generally agree with you here, but the subject of politically motivated violence is complicated. I don't know what people are taught outside of the US, but products of American primary and secondary education systems often come out believing that the big three--Gandhi, MLK and Mandela--always led nonviolent movements. Nothing could be further from the truth. And while there is no way of knowing this with any certainty, a lot of analyses suggest that Indian independence, Civil Rights in the US and the end of apartheid in South Africa would not likely have been achieved exclusively through nonviolent means.

ICE has now arrested a second pro Palestinian protester for allegedly "advocating for violence and terrorism"-- https://www.newsweek.com/second-pro-palestinian-protester-columbia-arrested-trump-officials-2045086. I don't know whether or not he did that, but I strongly suspect that he did not, given that the Regime is chock full of liars, rapists and hypocrites. Regardless, I guess we've moved past disappearing undocumented immigrants with a history of violent crimes? These are dangerous fucking people and it's only a matter of time before they start coming for regular old citizens, as well. We have crossed the Rubicon and the enemy is the one who has all the guns and who doesn't shirk from violence.

That said, I certainly don't know what the answer is but it deeply concerns me when you have Democrats voting to censure Al Green for breach of decorum or whatever. I mean, Jesus Fuck. Decorum? Like that's what's important now.

Thanks goes to Sarkus here for reminding me again (some time back) of this excellent passage from MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

(Emphasis added.)

 

[TheVat]

I generally agree with you here, but the subject of politically motivated violence is complicated. I don't know what people are taught outside of the US, but products of American primary and secondary education systems often come out believing that the big three--Gandhi, MLK and Mandela--always led nonviolent movements. Nothing could be further from the truth.

OK, but different topic. If I'm understanding the genesis of this thread, the issue is the putting of bullets into the crania of American politicians and apparatchiks. Quite a different proposal than, say, Gandhian salt marches or Parksian bus boycotts.

These are dangerous fucking people and it's only a matter of time before they start coming for regular old citizens, as well. We have crossed the Rubicon and the enemy is the one who has all the guns and who doesn't shirk from violence.

Yep, dangerous. But not the issue here. There are myriad ways of resisting jackbooted thugs. People who marched on Selma did not protest by putting bullets into cracker brains. That would have surely produced a far worse outcome for King's movement.

That said, I certainly don't know what the answer is but it deeply concerns me when you have Democrats voting to censure Al Green for breach of decorum or whatever. I mean, Jesus Fuck. Decorum? Like that's what's important now.

Yeah, lol, that did seem like ten Democrats (swing districts?) missing the point. People can shout protests in the street, something Dems have traditionally defended as vital, but not in Congress? I liked what Green did, basically saying I'm not gonna just sit here and raise a tiny sign on a stick while this a-hole lies to the American people about his delusional "mandate." I liked him even more when he was unrepentant during the censure vote.

And again, this seems not the issue on the table here in the newly minted Bullet in Skull thread, which is extreme and unlawful acts of violence. Extrajudicial killings, no matter how noble the cause, seem to be going to the dark side one is fighting. If they go extrajudicial, god help us if we do.

 

[parmalee]

OK, but different topic. If I'm understanding the genesis of this thread, the issue is the putting of bullets into the crania of American politicians and apparatchiks. Quite a different proposal than, say, Gandhian salt marches or Parksian bus boycotts.


Yep, dangerous. But not the issue here. There are myriad ways of resisting jackbooted thugs. People who marched on Selma did not protest by putting bullets into cracker brains. That would have surely produced a far worse outcome for King's movement.

This is partly what I am getting at with regards to that uncomfortable space where deontological and consequentialist ethics intersect. You are mostly discussing outcomes and I largely agree. There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part assassinations tend not to achieve the desired outcomes. But suppose (and I have to be careful here in my wording, as I'm not intentionally trying to violate any forum rules) certain persons wound up dead by whatever means--suppose, say, someone didn't just turn their head at a certain point: we might not be where we are now. Obviously, no one can say with any certainty, but I suspect that even with the martyrdom and all that shit we'd still likely be better off now.

And, having almost been killed at the hands of a fucking psychopath once--and continuing to pay the price for such (health-wise)--I can unequivocally state that I would certainly be better off now were some sort of preemptive action taken or incident occurred with respect to that. I can also say the same for my sister, and most definitely for some distant relatives.

I suspect that very few here, if any, are deontologists, but sometimes people strike me as, at least, inclining that way. Though it could simply come down to a person not thoroughly or exhaustively articulating their own position and the reasoning behind it. Regardless, such a perspective perplexes me because it seems wholly contingent upon entertaining a whole lotta cognitive dissonance. Because no matter how you slice it, all nations, states, societies, villages are founded upon and maintained by violence and killing in some form or another.

Yeah, lol, that did seem like ten Democrats (swing districts?) missing the point. People can shout protests in the street, something Dems have traditionally defended as vital, but not in Congress? I liked what Green did, basically saying I'm not gonna just sit here and raise a tiny sign on a stick while this a-hole lies to the American people about his delusional "mandate." I liked him even more when he was unrepentant during the censure vote.

And again, this seems not the issue on the table here in the newly minted Bullet in Skull thread, which is extreme and unlawful acts of violence. Extrajudicial killings, no matter how noble the cause, seem to be going to the dark side one is fighting. If they go extrajudicial, god help us if we do.

Probably. Hopefully. But we'll only be able to know this in retrospect. Either way, I don't have a whole lot of confidence here when our sole stopgap seems overly concerned with nonsensical shit like decorum.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not a fan of violence or tragedy for solving political problems (and I lived through Toronto's Crack-Smoking Mayor) but Trump is the first politician that I would not regret seeing on the receiving end of something terrible.

 

[parmalee]

I am not a fan of violence or tragedy for solving political problems (and I lived through Toronto's Crack-Smoking Mayor) but Trump is the first politician that I would not regret seeing on the receiving end of something terrible.

Bill Burr's new special, Drop Dead Years, just dropped today on Hulu and, I swear, there's a point at which the dude says pretty much the exact same thing that I said, only in a funnier way, of course. I have a rather inelegant way of saying things at times which stems largely from trying to drive home a point without having to type out so many words (I use a similar approach with programming with mixed results). In some contexts people are apt to take it the way it was intended; in others my method proves self-defeating becasue I have to use like ten times as many words to convey what I was actually getting at.

 

[TheVat]

This is partly what I am getting at with regards to that uncomfortable space where deontological and consequentialist ethics intersect. You are mostly discussing outcomes and I largely agree. There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part assassinations tend not to achieve the desired outcomes. But suppose (and I have to be careful here in my wording, as I'm not intentionally trying to violate any forum rules) certain persons wound up dead by whatever means--suppose, say, someone didn't just turn their head at a certain point: we might not be where we are now. Obviously, no one can say with any certainty, but I suspect that even with the martyrdom and all that shit we'd still likely be better off now.

I was looking at consequences, but wouid add that deontological and consequentialist ethics seem to be like yin and yang, i.e. both are needed and have to be balanced. E.g. we might have a moral duty not to kill but there could be situations where the consequences of NOT killing are clear and terrible and we would best get off the high horse of deontological. Though such clarity is more found in action movies than real life. My guess is that Trump keeping on showing America who he really is, as he deteriorates and says more of the quiet stuff out loud, will do better at cutting off MAGA oxygen than that bullet in PA would have. But yeah, who really knows.

 

[Sarkus]

I was looking at consequences, but wouid add that deontological and consequentialist ethics seem to be like yin and yang, i.e. both are needed and have to be balanced.

The eternal search to reconcile the deontological with the consequential. Some have suggested there's a threshold whereby once the perceived consequences are so unpalatable that they cross this threshold, consequentialism takes over from deontologicalism.
Seems reasonable to me, but based only on some can't understanding of them.

 

[parmalee]

I was looking at consequences, but wouid add that deontological and consequentialist ethics seem to be like yin and yang, i.e. both are needed and have to be balanced. E.g. we might have a moral duty not to kill but there could be situations where the consequences of NOT killing are clear and terrible and we would best get off the high horse of deontological. Though such clarity is more found in action movies than real life. My guess is that Trump keeping on showing America who he really is, as he deteriorates and says more of the quiet stuff out loud, will do better at cutting off MAGA oxygen than that bullet in PA would have. But yeah, who really knows.

I agree re: the balance, I should have stated that I am just perplexed when I find people leaning very heavily into deontological ethics. The threshold that Sarkus mentions in the preceding post mostly comes down to what people value most:

Cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have reportedly hindered the use of bomb-sniffing dogs.
...
In screenshots of internal emails released by Fox's chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, the program outlined how "all requests," including vet visits and food supplies, had been suspended.

"As of the moment, ALL requests for everything to include (Vet visits, kenneling, dog food, etc...) have been put on hold until we receive further guidance," one of the emails reportedly reads.

DOGE makes cuts to bomb-sniffing dogs at TSA: What to know

Reports indicate that DOGE funding cuts have compromised the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program.

www.newsweek.com

(Emphasis added.)

IOW in present circumstances, I object to certain actions mostly on tactical grounds; imho ain't nothing inherently "wrong" with such--and free Luigi!

I should add here that we were at the vet some years back and she found a bb in my dog's head. I, of course, flipped out and went on about how I was going to put a fucking bullet in a certain neighbor's fucking skull--our nearest neighbor is over a half mile away, but I knew who did it. The vet and two techs just laughed; but another tech said nothing and walked out of the room.

 

[foghorn]

Again, take your meds and consider a course in adult literacy.

What was that about meds?
You describing yourself:

one might reasonably conjecture, "dude sounds like a fucking psychopath." And, in fairness, I've got some sociopathic--or antisocial, at the very least--attributes.

I did say you were some mixed-up person.
*****************
What "certain posters here" need your bullet in the skull? My bold below.

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP,certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole........That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?

You told Trek to kill himself, who else here gets your bullet?

You are a rape supporter; consequently, there is a very strong probability that you are a sexual assailant, as well.
You should kill yourself. You have absolutely no value to anyone or anything in this world. I'm a pragmatist.

So, what other "certain posters here" gets your bullet?
Remember you said this was "not hyperbole"..... ..."That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?"My bold below.

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP,certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole........That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?

 

[parmalee]

What was that about meds?
You describing yourself:

I did say you were some mixed-up person.
*****************
Why go out of your way to say... "and that is not hyperbole.." And "That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?"
My bold below

*****************
What "certain posters here" need your bullet in the skull? My bold below.

My bold above.

You told Trek to kill himself, who else here gets your bullet?

So, what other "certain posters here" gets your bullet?
Remember you said this was "not hyperbole"..... ..."That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?"
*********************

Yep. I said "it was not hyperbole", because it was not hyperbole. Some people are shit. Fuck them. Deal with it.

Which other posters? Who cares? Why don't you figure it out? As I have stated repeatedly, but you seem incapable of grasping, is that some people are shit and the world would be much better off without them. You really don't seem to understand how language works, or what opinions are, for that matter.

Also, what exactly are you trying to emphasize with "(your) bold"? "If you remove language from the equation"--you really think you're capable of grasping that? I'm gonna hazard a guess here: You're not. Clearly.


Edit: Seriously, dude: take your meds. Your weird edits are growing increasingly incomprehensible. You were almost underway to making a point, albeit inadvertently, and then you edited it out of the post. Jesus Christ.

 

[foghorn]

Yep. I said "it was not hyperbole", because it was not hyperbole. Some people are shit. Fuck them. Deal with it.

Which other posters? Who cares? Why don't you figure it out? As I have stated repeatedly, but you seem incapable of grasping, is that some people are shit and the world would be much better off without them. You really don't seem to understand how language works, or what opinions are, for that matter.

Also, what exactly are you trying to emphasize with "(your) bold"? "If you remove language from the equation"--you really think you're capable of grasping that? I'm gonna hazard a guess here: You're not. Clearly.

If it is not hyperbole, then why say "If you remove language from the equation" in order to show you are not a complete nutter.
When you stand by your statement of putting bullets in posters skulls. That's not hyperbole to you right?

 

[parmalee]

If it is not hyperbole, then why say "If you remove language from the equation" in order to show you are not a complete nutter.
When you stand by your statement of putting bullets in posters skulls.

Oh my fucking god--I do stand by it, you fucking imbecile! How many fucking times do I have to say it? You are unhinged, and not terribly bright (else you'd be able to work out the quoted portion in a fashion that makes sense), so I'm out here.

 

[parmalee]

If it is not hyperbole, then why say "If you remove language from the equation" in order to show you are not a complete nutter.
When you stand by your statement of putting bullets in posters skulls. That's not hyperbole to you right?

You realize that you are conflating two different posts made weeks apart, yes? Ha. No, of course you don't.

Seriously: Take your meds!

 

[foghorn]

Oh my fucking god--I do stand by it, you fucking imbecile! How many fucking times do I have to say it? You are unhinged, and not terribly bright (else you'd be able to work out the quoted portion in a fashion that makes sense), so I'm out here.

Hope you haven't a gun licence.

 

[parmalee]

Hope you haven't a gun licence.

Right, because people who plan on committing murder always obtain the proper licensing! God, you're dumb.

 

[foghorn]

You realize that you are conflating two different posts made weeks apart, yes? Ha. No, of course you don't.Seriously: Take your meds!

So on some days you want to kill posters and on other days you don't.
I got it, those are the days your meds run out.

 

[DaveC426913]

What "certain posters here" need your bullet in the skull? My bold below.

Wait. What? The "bullet in the skull" is referring to forum members here? Not distant political targets?
That's not cool.