Famous Celebrities that have served in the Military...

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Diff is, I consider their actions to be a direct cause of whatever happened afterwards (justified or not) and you don't.

You hold them responsible for other people's criminal decisions, I don't.

No, I hold them responsible for illegally and violently creating the situation that led to the illegal and violent decisions of the NG.

If you don't hold them responsible for the criminal decisions of the NG then you wouldn't have said that they got anyone shot.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Diff is, I consider their actions to be a direct cause of whatever happened afterwards (justified or not) and you don't.

You hold them responsible for other people's criminal decisions, I don't.

No, I hold them responsible for illegally and violently creating the situation that led to the illegal and violent decisions of the NG.

If you don't hold them responsible for the criminal decisions of the NG then you wouldn't have said that they got anyone shot.

People are very often held accountable for the consequences of their illegal activities, regardless of whether those consequences were intentional or not. A juvenlie who puts a sack of burning dog crap on a porch, rings the doorbell and runs can be held responsible for all damages that occur when the owner stomps on the bag, slips, breaks his arm and the house burns down. The kid didn't intend for any of that to happen, but it did and was a direct result of his illegal actions. The porotesters didn't intend for anyone to get shot that day, but people did and it was a direct result of their illegal actions. Had they remained reaceful and obeyed the lawful orders given them the NG would never have even been called in.

YOU posted the definition of an anology that contained a requirement for intent. INTENT is everything in this analogy. If you don't think so then please explain what you think the parallel is so we can be on the same page.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

The kid didn't intend for any of that to happen, but it did and was a direct result of his illegal actions.

Just to use your logic then, what illegal and violent action was the homeowner doing when he trod on the bag?

The chain of events, in your example there, does not involve anyone else making an illegal, unjustifiable, inexcusable decision after the boy sets those events in motion. The boy intends the homeowner to take the action he did, the rest is bad luck.

The protesters did not intend for the National Guard to shoot at them, it is not just bad luck that people were shot and killed. It was the unjustifiable, inexcusable decision of the National Guard to open fire, a decision for which the protesters cannot be held at fault.

Quote

YOU posted the definition of an anology that contained a requirement for intent. INTENT is everything in this analogy. If you don't think so then please explain what you think the parallel is so we can be on the same page.

What do you mean, if I don't think so? I do think so.

I have explained, very clearly, several times the parallel between intent and outcome between the analogy and the real world situation. Don't insult both our intelligence by pretending you don't know.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The kid didn't intend for any of that to happen, but it did and was a direct result of his illegal actions.

Just to use your logic then, what illegal and violent action was the homeowner doing when he trod on the bag?

The chain of events, in your example there, does not involve anyone else making an illegal, unjustifiable, inexcusable decision after the boy sets those events in motion. The boy intends the homeowner to take the action he did, the rest is bad luck.

The protesters did not intend for the National Guard to shoot at them, it is not just bad luck that people were shot and killed. It was the unjustifiable, inexcusable decision of the National Guard to open fire, a decision for which the protesters cannot be held at fault.

Quote

YOU posted the definition of an anology that contained a requirement for intent. INTENT is everything in this analogy. If you don't think so then please explain what you think the parallel is so we can be on the same page.

What do you mean, if I don't think so? I do think so.

I have explained, very clearly, several times the parallel between intent and outcome between the analogy and the real world situation. Don't insult both our intelligence by pretending you don't know.

The homeowner did nothing wrong, just as the NG did nothing wrong prior to opening fire. My comparison was to show that if the protesters had obeyed the law the NG never would have been there.

I guess we are at an impass. I cannot draw a parallel between arape victim and the protesters because of the difference in intent, and you feel that the intent is not relevant.

I say we agree to disagree and spend our time picking apart 911 truther threads. I would much rather argue with you than against you.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

The homeowner did nothing wrong, just as the NG did nothing wrong prior to opening fire.

And before they opened fire, no one had been shot.

Quote

My comparison was to show that if the protesters had obeyed the law the NG never would have been there.

So? It wasn't the NG being there that got anyone killed, it was members of the NG behaving so egregiously, so unjustly and so inexcusably that you cannot blame anyone but them for what they did. They were the only people there that day responsible for killing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Its not trolling.. its a statement of fact..

The big whooshing sound was a fact? His name really IS Mr. Neidermeyer?

Those are some interesting facts.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The homeowner did nothing wrong, just as the NG did nothing wrong prior to opening fire.

And before they opened fire, no one had been shot.

Quote

My comparison was to show that if the protesters had obeyed the law the NG never would have been there.

So? It wasn't the NG being there that got anyone killed, it was members of the NG behaving so egregiously, so unjustly and so inexcusably that you cannot blame anyone but them for what they did. They were the only people there that day responsible for killing.

I agree 99%.
The point that I suggest we come to an impass on is whether or not the protesters caused the situation that directly led to the shooting. I feel they bear partial responsibility for reasons previously stated, you do not.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Its not trolling.. its a statement of fact..

The big whooshing sound was a fact? His name really IS Mr. Neidermeyer?

Those are some interesting facts.

I have to admit that I had to Google the names to find out what she meant. I've never seen "Animal House", only brief clips that did nothing to move me to watch the whole thing.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[redlegphi 0]

I know James Doohan (Scottie from Star Trek) was already mentioned as having served in the Canadian Army, but I thought I'd add on that he stormed the beach at Normandy (Juno Beach) and had part of his finger shot off.
Also, Ted Williams was a Marine aviator, not Air Force.
Now, to get back off topic, I just thought I'd throw out that one of my PLs got hit in the back of the head by a Sadrist brick (at a campus protest, no less). He and his platoon somehow managed to avoid firing into the crowd. Just sayin'.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Its not trolling.. its a statement of fact..

The big whooshing sound was a fact? His name really IS Mr. Neidermeyer?

Those are some interesting facts.

I have to admit that I had to Google the names to find out what she meant. I've never seen "Animal House", only brief clips that did nothing to move me to watch the whole thing.

Sorry but I just have an issue with those who bow to authoritarian power without thought or question.
I thought it was you supposedly conservative supposedly patriotic types who would do that in a situation FAR TOO SIMILAR to the Boston Massacre where troops also turned their weapons on unarmed civilians. You guys state time after time that the protestors (in both situations by the way) were disobeying lawfull orders. I can only surmise that there are far too many conservatives unwilling to question the legality of their sheepdogs needs and desires and will allow them any manner of action as long as it does not upset their peacefully grazing their lives away.

[kallend 2,106]

Glenn Miller, MIA December 1944

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Sorry to burst yer bubble, skippy, but the confrontation was the sole responsibility of the students.

Ummm - NO.

Calling in the NG in the first place guaranteed a confrontation. Before that happened it was really no different than any of thousands of anti-war protests that went off without a massacre.

The students were retreating from the Commons over Blanket Hill. The NG was advancing with fixed bayonets.

By their own incompetence, the NG painted themselves in a corner in the practice field and panicked.

Oh...so the protesters throwing rocks, disobeying a lawful order, breaking many other laws, etc. did not cause the violence that day....but bringing in the NG guaranteed a confrontation??

Apparently it did. There were thousands of acts of civil disobedience protesting the Vietnam War, and only one was so poorly handled it ended up with US soldiers advancing with fixed bayonets and opening fire on unarmed US civilians who were retreating.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Sorry to burst yer bubble, skippy, but the confrontation was the sole responsibility of the students.

Ummm - NO.

Calling in the NG in the first place guaranteed a confrontation. Before that happened it was really no different than any of thousands of anti-war protests that went off without a massacre.

The students were retreating from the Commons over Blanket Hill. The NG was advancing with fixed bayonets.

By their own incompetence, the NG painted themselves in a corner in the practice field and panicked.

Oh...so the protesters throwing rocks, disobeying a lawful order, breaking many other laws, etc. did not cause the violence that day....but bringing in the NG guaranteed a confrontation??

Apparently it did. There were thousands of acts of civil disobedience protesting the Vietnam War, and only one was so poorly handled it ended up with US soldiers advancing with fixed bayonets and opening fire on unarmed US civilians who were retreating.

But don't you feel it is somewhat of a double standard to say bringing in the NG guaranteed a confrontation, but then relieving the protesters of any responsibility for what happened even though it was they that turned the protest into a violent event? Surely, just as there are instances of protests without death, there are also instances of NG being sent where no shots were fired or anybody killed?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Sorry but I just have an issue with those who bow to authoritarian power without thought or question.

I understand that, and I happen to agree with the basic idea. I just don't agree that turning to violence was a valid option...for either side of the tragedy.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,106]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.