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

[Mr. G]

Little people think they're so big.

Big enough usually works.

 

[Mr. G]

Attention I think. Not much beyond that.

The website needs attention. I'm doing my part.

 

[Mr. G]

There' are a great many other websites to hang out on.

With actually intelligent people.

I'm doing a community service by trying to lift boats.

The other web sites don't need the help.

--G

 

[Pinball1970]

Also, as far as nonsensicality goes, there's this:

"If you remove language from the equation."

Of course, maybe the full quote would help?

"(I)f you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish."

Some people are struggling for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, so I'll expand on that:

Most (all?) people have some sociopathic attributes--some say shitty things, some do shitty things, and some do both. So when dealing with the first variety, if you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish--cuz there's virtually no shitty doing. Real hard to work out, that was. Jesus. But the underlying point there is that I mostly say shitty things--cuz I've never hit anyone or done anything of that sort. Not virtuous or anything, just lazy maybe?

So what does that passage have to do with anything? I've no clue.

This thread was always going to be a tricky one with a title like it is.
To me putting a bullet in my skull is meaningless, we are on the internet not in the field or gangsters.
No one one should fear a bullet, perhaps I should threaten a cream pie in the face? Just as solid a threat. Say the cream is more than two days old? The horror..
Political figures? Trump? Vance? Putin?
Kicking these guys out of power via democratic means is what civilization means to me.

 

[Mr. G]

I'm amused.

Hey, we're being serious here! Obey the authoritay!.

Pinball 1970: "...putting a bullet in my skull is meaningless..."

Honesty is in such short supply. Dude!

 

[foghorn]

Also, as far as nonsensicality goes, there's this:
"If you remove language from the equation."

Of course, maybe the full quote would help?

"(I)f you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish."

Some people are struggling for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, so I'll expand on that:

Most (all?) people have some sociopathic attributes--some say shitty things, some do shitty things, and some do both. So when dealing with the first variety, if you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish--cuz there's virtually no shitty doing. Real hard to work out, that was. Jesus. But the underlying point there is that I mostly say shitty things--cuz I've never hit anyone or done anything of that sort. Not virtuous or anything, just lazy maybe?

So what does that passage have to do with anything? I've no clue.

"If you remove language from the equation."
You are still left with you saying the bullet in the skull remark is not hyperbole "and that is not hyperbole."
And you also said..."That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?"
Check out what you said:

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. 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.

That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously? We pay taxes to murder random kids in orphanages and at weddings in Afghanistan: I can confidently say that they (random kids) "deserve" to die far less than any of these fuckers--and this is nothing to do with "deserving" or not; it's a matter of necessity for survival. And then I'll post another page from Art Spiegelman's Maus, or some such shit. There's a reason that we study history. If we're not gonna learn shit from it, then why bother?

My bold above.
So if it's not hyperbole and "That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?"
That means you want certain posters on this site with bullets in their skulls. Make up your mind???

 

[foghorn]

This thread was always going to be a tricky one with a title like it is.
To me putting a bullet in my skull is meaningless, we are on the internet not in the field or gangsters.
No one one should fear a bullet, perhaps I should threaten a cream pie in the face? Just as solid a threat. Say the cream is more than two days old? The horror..
Political figures? Trump? Vance? Putin?
Kicking these guys out of power via democratic means is what civilization means to me.

"To me putting a bullet in my skull is meaningless, we are on the internet not in the field or gangsters. "
If it is to be taken non-seriously, then why go out the 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?"
See my post #46 above for the context of what was said.
**********************
And it makes for good discussion when we tell each other to go kill themselves because they too may be a rapist because they support Trump??
My bold below:

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.

There's a lot of rapists in America it seems, Trump supporters that is.

 

[Pinball1970]

And it makes for good discussion when we tell each other to go kill themselves because they too may be a rapist because they support Trump

No. It's a bad thread. Serves no purpose other than bringing out idiots like Mr G.
There are no bullets, just words but even so threats or hints at threats serve no purpose.

 

[foghorn]

No. It's a bad thread. Serves no purpose other than bringing out idiots like Mr G.
There are no bullets, just words but even so threats or hints at threats serve no purpose.

The thread as brought parmalee out in the open, and he is not to be taken serious when he says he is to be taken serious??
And saying to a Trump supporter they may be a rapist for supporting Thrump, is just a big laugh at most.
Is that who that is Mr G. I got him on ignore.

 

[Pinball1970]

The thread as brought parmalee out in the open, and he is not to be taken serious when he says he is to be taken serious??
And saying to a Trump supporter they may be a rapist for supporting Thrump, is just a big laugh at most.
Is that who that is Mr G. I got him on ignore.

Most have Mr G on ignore I think.

 

[Pinball1970]

The thread as brought parmalee out in the open, and he is not to be taken serious when he says he is to be taken serious??
And saying to a Trump supporter they may be a rapist for supporting Thrump, is just a big laugh at most.
Is that who that is Mr G. I got him on ignore.

Most have Mr G on ignore I think.

 

[Tiassa]

So if it's not hyperbole and "That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?" That means you want certain posters on this site with bullets in their skulls. Make up your mind???

Again2191 , let's look at what everybody is quoting: "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."

Okay, you're on: If what question?

And, again, any of us can look it up:

This is where I differ greatly from many/most modern leftists and left-leaning folks. Suppose someone asks the following question:

"Why do we need speed limits and traffic lights?"

If that question is coming from a 7 or 8 year old kid, then it warrants a sincere, patient and thorough response. It's a fair question, coming from a little kid.

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.

So, who asked that question, Foghorn?

 

[foghorn]

Again2191 , let's look at what everybody is quoting: "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."

Okay, you're on: If what question?

And, again, any of us can look it up:

So, who asked that question, Foghorn?

So parmalee doesn’t think anyone here needs a bullet in the skull, but they do need to kill their self because they could be a rapist because they support Trump?
And that is Parmalee in reply to Trek:

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.

"And, again, any of us can look it up"

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

Okay, so a lot of people have complained about this thread.

It is problematic in a number of different ways. First and foremost, parmalee seems to be suggesting that he would be happy to see certain other forum members become violent murder victims because, in some circumstances, he thinks they would deserve that fate.

The point at which the apparent endorsing of violence crosses the line into advocacy could be argued.

Regardless, this doesn't strike me as a conversation that is conducive to promoting cordial conversation among our members. And, in fact, the record shows that it has not done so.

This, by itself, is enough to close this thread.

In addition, parmalee has been sounding off, mostly at foghorn it seems - though it isn't totally clear whether his ire extends to other members here - with personal insults of various kinds.

These, too, are in clear breach of our posting guidelines.

Now, apparently there's a history to all of this, which - hardly surprising - originated in debate about Trump and the Trump 2.0 presidency. I have done a little digging into who started what and when and I have no particular desire to take sides on whatever the ancient catalyst was.

I suggest that if you really can't get along with somebody else, perhaps you should consider avoiding interacting with them, at least on a regular basis. Childish exchanges of insults and barbs back and forth generally don't make good reading for the bystanders.

So, we come to the question of whether I should be issuing official warnings to one or more of the people involved, who really ought to know better.

Instead of doing that, I'm going to suggest that those of you who are at fault - you know who you are - consider knocking it off. If you can't or won't, then you can expect the warnings and bans to come.

This thread is now closed and housed in the most appropriate subforum, given much of its content. It's a pity. There is some useful discussion here, but the majority of the content drags the rest down with it.