PeterDavid.net

You know, the last thing we want on our subways are Jews and Muslims uniting in brotherhood. Can't the MTA do anything about this?

And to watch Fox News, you'd think there's no reason at all for instances of raging anti-Christian sentiment in this country. Violence goes both ways, folks. It's really sad, but, one would hope, fixable. I just don't see any efforts to fix it. So depressing.

How do you teach respect? How do you teach, if not acceptance, at least tolerance? I have three children and I am scared as hell (sorry, pun intended) at the current culture trends in American society.

Well, that's religion for ya.

Whats sad is I know many educated christians that feel the same way.

Peter, can you let us know where to find this news item? I've been googling variations on "news christian mta new york" and not finding it. I'd love to read & forward the article.
Thanks.

"And to watch Fox News, you'd think there's no reason at all for instances of raging anti-Christian sentiment in this country."

"Well, that's religion for ya."

I think what's unfortunate about situations like this is that "Christians" like this seem to have the biggest voice in our society. Based on this story, I'd say there's nothing Christ-like about these individuals, and the Christians that I know certainly are nothing like this. Yet, this stigma is applied to me and my friends despite me completely disagreeing with with the conduct of these people on the subway.

If the pole dancers had been present, this whole situation would have been avoided.

And so if Jesus died during Chanukah, was he born on Good Friday?

I'm confused... so which one of them was gyrating on poles?

:)

Well it's the Jewish kids own fault. By saying something other than "Merry Christmas" they were engaging in the War On Christmas (tm). Acknowledging any holiday other than Christmas is an attack on Christmas and the Christians were defending themselves against a viscious attack.

I had sarcasm tages at each end of my previous post, which didn't post.

Hmmm. It is scary to think that people like that do exist in our society.

[quote]I have three children and I am scared as hell (sorry, pun intended) at the current culture trends in American society.[/quote]

Turn off your TV, read a history book. The world today isn't a scarier place than it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago... it's just that a person in Iowa or Utah or Singapore or Berlin wouldn't have heard about racial violence in the subway in NYC 50 years ago. Most of the people in NYC wouldn't've heard about it.

I have two kids of my own, I understand where you're coming from, but statistics say crime is DOWN, even though we as a culture are more afraid than ever. Did you go out and play all day away from home as a kid, like I did? Did you walk 2-3 miles to school on your own? I did, and the notion of that scares me with my own kids, which is DUMB, 'cause the chances of something happening to them is LOWER than it was for me. But it'll happen to some kid, somewhere in the world, and we'll hear about it and personalize it and fear even more for our own kids. :(

This summer I turned off my satellite dish, started buying TV shows off iTunes, and read the news selectively instead of being buried under the drama and the sensationalism... and it's helping, little by little. :)

It's really sad and monumentally disgusting. It's conduct of this sort that makes a lot of people sneer at Christianity as a whole, when these lackwits are about as "Christian" as Charlie Manson.

Of course, I agree that the presence of pole-dancers would have almost certainly prevented this. It's tough to argue about holiday greetings with someone twirling half-naked around a pole only a few yards away.

Why exactly was a kid who was about to go to jail for a previous crime allowed to be out in public? Seems like a recipe for disaster--what's his incentive NOT to be the thug he obviously is.

Well, at least they'll be able to find him easily enough for his next trial.

Peter, can you let us know where to find this news item? I've been googling variations on "news christian mta new york" and not finding it. I'd love to read & forward the article.

I googled "subway" and "jewish" and got some good hits:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iWCJyvT0BKYliSAruZ1wUdCJlp8QD8TFI1L82

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish. Not a great defense but you works with what you gots.+

There are those who might be tempted to say "let's just ban religion", but the real culprits - stupidity and ignorance - are a lot harder to deal with.

On that note, I wish you all a
Happy Christmas
Merry New Year
Cheerful Chanukah
(Insert preferred ethnic greeting)
and so forth.

The Daily News had the best coverage of the whole affair

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_muslim_hero_breaks_up_train_beating-1.html

Thanks, Kath. My favorite bit from the Daily News article:

"One of the Jewish victims, Walter Adler, expressed amazement that Askari took the risk to try to help.

"That a random Muslim kid helped some Jewish kids, that's what's positive about New York," said Adler, 23, who suffered a broken nose and required four stitches to close a lip wound."

Applause also to the transit cops who acted quickly and swiftly, and apprehended all ten assailants.

Start the Law & Order clock on this one, too. As long as they don't combine it with the pole dancers...

There's only one reason I hate this time of year and this would be it. I've been around too many people who froth at the mouth because December should be dedicated to Jesus Christ and nobody else, regardless how many world holidays have occurred in December or far longer.

Not that bitching about the Season's Greetings is equal to the behavior of these idiots... I should have said the ignorance at this time of year towards religion and tolerance is the single reason I tend to hate the season.

Something like that.

I'm glad nobody was hurt beyond healing.

And a happy Eid to the good Samaritan (is that a weird wish in this case?)

And Christians who complain about how a few idiots like these give all Christians a bad name should stop and take note how a few terrorists have given all Muslims a bad name.... anyone who uses violence in support of their religion gets painted with the same brush in my sketchbook.

Yipes, talk about the rotten apples in the barrel. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if someone reminded them that Jesus was Jewish? So much for the Peace and Joy of the season...

Kind of makes me understand why I was described at a Yule (pagan holiday) party as "a Catholic, but one of the good ones."

There is a chance that religion was just and excuse. It could have been a guy with the "wrong" sports team cap and this guy may have picked a fight with him. In other words: he may have been a bully looking for an excuse to pick on someone. I knew guys like that back in high school.

Playing devil's advocate (ironic, given this discussion is about violence and religion -- and I'm an Agnostic), this fighting is not about Christians or Christianity. There are millions and millions of Christians who are good people, tolerant of others' differences and supporting the community through their lives and charity work. Unfortunately, moderate and good people don't make for good news: The violent and the extreme do. So you'll see a lot more news stories with Christians doing horrible things or screaming and shouting than you will about Christians behaving, well, like Christians.

Indicentally, I've heard this "the Jews killed Jesus" lots of times. Unless I'm mistaken, according to the Bible Jesus was put to death by Caesar and the Jews only opted not to release him. Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus? Or did I miss something?

Wait the Romans killed Jesus?

And the Vatican is situated in Rome.

Therefore: THE CAATHOLICS KILLED JESUS!!!!!!

Wait'll I tell Father Dan at mass. It's gonna be a cruel, cruel sunday.

Oh man, this sounds like the beginning of a really bad "Walks Into A Bar" joke.

*shakes head* I'm so glad I'm an atheist.

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish.

So, the Jesus defense, then?

TWL

*shakes head* I'm so glad I'm an atheist.

Moi aussi.

Favorite exchange on the topic at one of my previous schools:

Me: [something relevant to the already tangential conversation, that happens to include the fact that I'm an atheist]

Student: Wait -- you're an atheist?

Me: Swear to God. Oh ... wait ...

TWL

This is mostly in reply to Matt- I'm a non-observant Jew who's grown up in heavily Christian cities, including one in the deep South which was an experience all its own and then Chaska, MN, which is predominately Lutheran and filled with people who are anti-Semitic by default and lack of education. The result is, most of my friends are Christian, practicing and sincere. Everyone on my Mom's side of the family is Christian, which isn't... actually all that good for Christianity's image, but the point is, I, personally?, in no way think this is an accurate representation of Christians. Accordingly, I attach no stigma. I think most people with half a brain realize that this isn't an accurate representation of most of their friends and neighbors. But these people are Christians. That's one of the faces of Christianity- an unfortunate one, but one that has not been improminent throughout centuries. And violence begets violence- with the shooting at the mission recently, I'm not surprised we're now getting news stories like this. Disheartened and saddened, but not surprised.

What media outlets and genuine Christians need to understand, I think, is that Christianity had a grip on the world for a very long time and a lot of bad things were done in its name, which has affected the modern view of the religion. Not a problem exclusive to Christianity by any means, but because of its importance and numbers, a problem with more wide spread and visible consequences. Non-Christians have had to develop all manner of coping mechanisms and, unfortunately, tools for retaliation and survival, and this increasing trend toward Secularism is part of it and, I tend to think, part of what's spurring a lot of the recent conflict.

And that makes me a sad panda.

Boy, where are the Three Wise Men when you need 'em? :(

The lawyer for the "gentleman" who will doubtlessly be spending even more time in jail now claims that his client could not possibly be guilty of this because his mom was Jewish.

But he's hoping no one finds out he was an immaculate conception.

Between this incident and the one in Baltimore where a homeless white woman was beaten by a gang of black youths, and keeping in mind that it's probably only the racial angles that made these news (as opposed to the ordinary everyday beatings and muggings that go unnoticed),the message seems to be: stay off of mass transit.

Although I'll bet when we see the arrest records of these thugs the real lesson will be to stop giving these idiots second, third, and nineteenth chances.

But he's hoping no one finds out he was an immaculate conception

A common misconception (zing!). Jesus was the virgin birth. Mary was the immaculate conception.

Speaking of religious (lack of) education. Check out what "Balducci's Food Lover's Market" suggests might be "Delicious for Chanukah":http://nancykayshapiro.livejournal.com/35633.html?thread=54321

Merriam-Webster's treats "embryo" and "fetus" as synonyms for "conception."

This does prove something though.No matter what the religion you follow it doesnt mean a damn thing if you dont actually practice the principles it was based on in your life.
The so called "Christians" in this attack were hardly behaving in a manner Jesus would approve of.Also I give a lot of credit to the young Muslim who intervened in the attack.I am sure he didnt see the religions of the players involved he just saw something that was clearly wrong and acted in a manner he felt was in accordance with his personal beliefs.
As far as the attacker who was on the streets while awaiting sentencing.Thats our legal system for you though it is nice to see he has the full set of hates...black,jewish,etc. I am sure he has or will find time to attack someone of gay ,asian or some other diversity before all is said and done .
ASSCLOWN!

>I give a lot of credit to the young Muslim who intervened in the attack.I am sure he didnt see the religions of the players involved he just saw something that was clearly wrong and acted in a manner he felt was in accordance with his personal beliefs.

Actually the story said the jewish kids (young men?) were carrying a menora, so he WOULD have seen the religion of at least one set of players, which makes his actions all the more impressive. (Jews vs. Muslims something-or-other going on over in the middle east.)

Merriam-Webster's treats "embryo" and "fetus" as synonyms for "conception."

Yes. Yes it does.

Anyhoo, the immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without any stain of sin. The virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin. The two are commonly confused as being one and the same and both referring to Jesus.

Just a heads up for those who want to get their analogies correct.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I apologize on behalf of true Christians everywhere for the actions of these mindless buffoons who claim the name 'Christian' but don't live up to it. At the very least I apologize for the Christians, like me, who acknowledge our Jewish friends as God's Chosen People, and would never disparage the Jewish people for any reason whatsoever; I publicly acknowledge that that's just wrong. I am deeply ashamed of what those idiots on the subway did.

Anyhoo, the immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was born without any stain of sin. The virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin. The two are commonly confused as being one and the same and both referring to Jesus.

Just a heads up for those who want to get their analogies correct.

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

Sorry, you lost me.

Indicentally, I've heard this "the Jews killed Jesus" lots of times. Unless I'm mistaken, according to the Bible Jesus was put to death by Caesar and the Jews only opted not to release him. Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus? Or did I miss something?

I prefer Sarah Silverman's take:
"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I’m one of the few people that believe it was the blacks."

Kind of makes me understand why I was described at a Yule (pagan holiday) party as "a Catholic, but one of the good ones."

I had a similar experience but was the qualifier was "but not an asshole."

So idiots and thugs used religion as an excuse to be idiots and thugs. What’s new? If it hadn’t been religion, they’d have found a different excuse for it. And the fact that they claim to be Christian was actually irrelevant in the same way that many religious terrorists of all stripes claim to be “religious” to excuse their behavior. They’re thugs, idiots and, sometimes, killers and that’s all. The religious aspect was just their rationalization for why they’re “right” and “justified” in their actions. It’s not the religion that’s the problem here; it’s the assholes who declared it their cause.

JamesLynch: “Shouldn't the ignorant be blaming the Romans (or, going to today, the Italians) for killing Jesus?”

Yeah, but who wants to go pick a fight with the mob?

Bill, you’re a science teacher. You know that scientists have only ever found one naturally formed Earthly substance that’s ten times as dense as diamond and you’re about to argue theology with it. You’ve got history, dogmatic law and the facts on your side. It has Merriam-Webster's, an inability to comprehend simple concepts and its own super density on its side. We all know that this is just going to go on for dozens of posts where it shows a complete inability to admit error or to grasp simple concepts that it simply refuses to grasp for density’s sake. Why make yourself suffer? Why not just cut to the chase and review one of your zombie flicks now? We’ll all be happier in the end.

Sorry, you lost me.

I'm just demonstrating a paganistic indifference, Bill. You're just catching me while I'm at work. Thank you for the correction.

Sasha: "I prefer Sarah Silverman's take:
"Everybody blames the Jews for killing Christ, and then the Jews try to pass it off on the Romans. I’m one of the few people that believe it was the blacks.""

I've long had a theory that everything involving Jesus was set up by aliens. They wouldn't even need advanced technology, we can fake immaculate conception today just by drugging a girl unconscious and taking her to a fertility clinic for artificial insemination. Aliens could probably pull that off in an afternoon.

Jerry Chandler,

I was going to make an analogy to gazing into the Abyss, but I couldn't have done it with anywhere near as much rhetorical style. I yield the floor to you.

Well the Bible describes God as being omniscient and omnipotent, and it says that Jesus knew full well what fate awaited him in Jerusalem and even asked God to spare him the suffering. Surely, that means that Jesus was killed by God, no? I'd love to see those idiot kids try to beat HIM up.

Damn, Damn, damn, damn and damn!

I just got an email alert from creatures & Crooks Bookshoppe. Terry Pratchett has just announced that he has been diagnosed with a very rare form of early onset Alzheimer's.

The official statement is here
http://tinyurl.com/2kjt34

and it's confirmed on the Terry Pratchett message board
http://tinyurl.com/2sw5bv

Why make yourself suffer? Why not just cut to the chase and review one of your zombie flicks now? We’ll all be happier in the end.

Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie, and if there hasn't, isnt it about time?

Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie, and if there hasn't, isnt it about time?

Haven't you ever seen It's a Wonderful Life?

Apologies to the fans.

"Has there ever been a Christmas-themed zombie movie..."

Ever seen the acting in The Hallmark Channel's Christmas movies? If they're not "zombie" films, they're damned close. And the writing scares the hell out of me.

Hey guys...I have to apologize in advance for this not being related to the topic at hand, but it is a topic often discussed here and it's sort of tangentially related to an old issue of Supergirl.

So basically, I'm having a dispute with a co-worker who is giving me the old "homosexuality is wrong because my religion says so." Now, I'm not gay myself but I can't stand it when people hide their bigotry behind the Bible. One of the best, and most concise, arguments against this line of thinking comes from an old issue of Supergirl where Andy Jones says something to the effect of (mind you I'm paraphrasing from a comic I haven't read for 5 years):

"Sure, the Bible has prohibitions against homosexuality. But it also says that a suspected adulteress should drink poison to test her guilt, and a child who curses his parent should be stoned. Funny how people tossed those aside, huh?"

I'm pretty Bible illiterate myself, so I was wondering if anyone knew where those passages--or others like it--are in the Bible? I think you all know where I'm going with this...it's the fairly text book secular defense against Bible-thumping. Granted, I don't think I can change his world view, but it would be nice if even for a split second it got him thinking about why, in his view of morality, only certain Bible passages make the cut. Passages from the New Testament will probably be more effective than Old (is there anything even about homosexuality in the New?). So...does anyone know any good websites or resources for this? PAD, if you're there, I'd love your input.

Check out Leviticus...it's got all kinds of prohibitions that nobody takes seriously anymore.

At any rate, Jesus recommended turning the other cheek in the face of actual harm so it stands to reason He would not be in favor of doing bad things to people whose "sin", if one sees it as such, does you no harm whatsoever.

But don't expect reason to make much headway.

I'm just demonstrating a paganistic indifference, Bill. You're just catching me while I'm at work. Thank you for the correction.

S'cool. I wonder how many man-hours this blog has cost the economy.

Christmas themed zombies...don't think so...there's a game at http://www.hallpass.com/media/christmaszombiedefence.html but it isn't very good.

Geoff,

Most of the rules are in Leviticus. IIRC, there's no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament, other than that 12 guys traveling around together bit.

Interestingly, the prohibitions are against 2 men, showing that G-d likes a bit of Hot Lesbian Action as much as the rest of us :D

I can't remember any Christmas zombie films, but wasn't there one with a killer Santa? Now if that isn't incentive to be nice instead of naughty, I don't know what would be...

Wasn't there one with a killer Santa? ONE?!? Oh, you poor sheltered girl, you need more DVDs.

Fox News would reports that this is evidence of an ever-deepening pole dancer conspiracy no doubt involving The Golden Compass and the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs' mascot

I wish I could say this kind of thing suprises me but sadly, it dosen't.
I watched "Jesus Camp" last week and thought it was the scariest damned thing I've seen in a long time. You actually see kids' minds being warped before your eyes. I've known people who were programmed like that. These kids are the future concentration camp guards, folks.
There was the Columbine-styled shooting in Colorado a few days. Some folks are so worried
about "fightin' em' over there so we don't fight em' over here" that we don't realize the kind of freak factories that out there in the Heartland.
Everyone should also check out Mike Huckabee's
babblings in regards to his past remarks about
gays and people with HIV/AIDS. Still think the concentration camps are far-fetched?
Jesus, some of Your more clueless followers are really screwing up Your ideas.

Start the Law & Order clock on this one, too. As long as they don't combine it with the pole dancers...

Why not? That could only be an an improvement..

Props for the last line.

What I wanna know is - can't we all just be a little nicer to one another? and maybe exchange a few gifts with our closer friends and loved ones? for just one month before the weather gets really foul? without bringing religion into it?

We all know that this is just going to go on for dozens of posts where it shows a complete inability to admit error or to grasp simple concepts that it simply refuses to grasp for density’s sake.

Speaking of failure to grasp simple concepts: Bill's corretion changed the interpretation of my hypothetical situation -- but my response works with his correction. I literally failed nothing.

And speaking of the inability to admit error: Take notes for your own precedent, Jerry. If one of us has cause to complain on this issue, it ain't you.

Jerry wrote:Oh, you poor sheltered girl, you need more DVDs.

All donations are welcome. :)

I hadn't realized that there was more than one Santa slasher. Just don't tell me if they made one about the Easter Bunny...

Does Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! count as a "don't tell me if" movie?

Ok, I won't tell you about it. Not on DVD anyhow.

"Wait the Romans killed Jesus?"

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with "The View".

According to the newest View co-host, Sherry Shallow, it was the Greeks.

(She was probably really referring to fraternities, but who knows?)

I don't know of any Christmas zombie movies. However, FUTURAMA, when aired on Cartoon Network, frequently cuts out the Professor's exclamation "Sweet zombie Jesus!" This is odd since they don't mind having a killer Santa robot (or Zoidberg pretending to be Jesus), nor do they mind the line that all the videotapes were erased during the second coming of Jesus. This is to say nothing of how Jesus comes off on SOUTH PARK or FAMILY GUY...

Actually, my favorite creepy Christmas story--besides the original BLACK CHRISTMAS which STILL holds up--is the episode of INVADER ZIM "The Most Horrible Christmas Ever".

Mr. Sludgy: That's the story of the most horrible Christmas ever. But Zim and Dib were wrong that day. Santa wasn't destroyed, Santa lives on…
Small Child: In the hearts, and minds, of us all? [giggles]
Mr. Sludgy: No! In space! Gathering power! And every Christmas he returns to Earth, and that's why we all live in this protective dome! [alarm sounds] Looks like Santa's here! Raise the shields, children!

It also has my favorite Christmas song ever:

Bow down,
bow down,
before the power of Santa
or be crushed,
be crushed,
by…his jolly boots of doom!

How nice for the assailant you won't infer his Christian bias from his immaculate conception.

Lingster, is that you?

Anyways.

I do find it sad that beyond this story is how quickly some will just defend their religion with the whole "Well, they obviously weren't Christians after all", all the while going on about how we should kill all the Muslims, because their bad apples actually count.

I saw that the shootings here in Colorado were mentioned. The kid behind that was seriously screwed up in the head; he may have been raised in a very religious family, but I don't think if you receive the proper teachings of Jesus (and by all accounts, he did), that you end up with a kid like that because of religion itself, or with the morons in this subway incident.

I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I can't blame it for these particular incidents.

Lingster, is that you?

Did you find that in Lingster's post? My post is the post that draws you into the discussion?

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Yeah but Mitt Romneys a mormon. Sorry

Hmmm. It is scary to think that people like that do exist in our society.

I agree, people that are searching for someone to hate only cling to religion as a accuse. The jail time one of the attacker got for attacking a black jay in 2005 had nothing to do with religion. Then it was skin color, they probably hate other minorities as well.

If you hate, you usually hate all kind of people, because hatred is a mental state and all rationalism is only a tool to allow one to keep on hating.

People choose to hate, it has nothing to do with religion this is just an excuse, as the record of one of the attacker for attacking a black person indicate.

If someone hates he usually hates everybody, at least all people that it is "safe" to hate.

To Geoff:

I'm not that bible literate myself, but maybe this website helps you:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Cheers
Ben

Firstly, I hope those kids are alright, psychologically as well as physically. They did the right thing, by taking the non-violent approach. And, cheers to the Muslim fellow who stepped in to try to protect them and break it up. As for the "christian" attackers -- well, it's just more proof that terrorists *do* live among us, and the Misadministration has been barreling in the wrong direction for years now...

Wildcat

the Misadministration has been barreling in the wrong direction for years now...

Heh, but could you imagine how low the approval rating would have been if our Misadministration had suggested the problem was with us and not with the "outside world"?

Not defending them mind you, but I can see why they wouldn't want to go in that direction.

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

Religion gives three major things to people. 1. Comfort about their place in the universe. 2. Guidance through life's journey. 3. An excuse to act like a moron and pound things when they don't go your way.

Every time I hear about something like this, I picture God looking around and thinking, "Don't try to pin this one on ME, you jerks!"

"Does Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! count as a "don't tell me if" movie?"

Don't forget about that whole sequence in the second Bill and Ted movie!!

What do you MEAN, I'm the only person on the planet who retained the power of linguistic communication whose seen that and lived?

Geoff - Just reread that SUPERGIRL issue a few days ago. Good timing, yes. For those who didn't get that, the story had the titular character trying to keep Stanhope campus from erupting into riots as blacks protested the planned visit by a notorious bigot scheduled to speak there. Supergirl winds up in the middle as she tries to protect his right to free speech, which has the blacks convinced she's on his side, as opposed to on the side of an important principle. PAD's punchline is dead-on as usual as the black students congratulate themselves - the speaker has been driven away by a violent confrontation (not to mention a bombed-out campus building). Only ... a representative of the jewish students shows up and tells them the speaker *they've* got scheduled - an Islamic(?) who is known for anti-Semetic stance - is unacceptable to the Jewish group and they'll do everything they can to shut HIM down. Of course this comes as a surprise to the black leadership on campus who seem unable to grasp that they aren't the only ones put upon and if they don't respect others' free speech, why should anyone respect theirs? What goes around ...

My post is the post that draws you into the discussion?

You give yourself too much credit, as usual.

But next time I'll be sure to put any responses to you after I respond to everybody else first. That way, it'll help keep your ego in check.

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

The justification for establishing hate crime standards isn't just controversial in general, it's controversial here. Although they have yet to do so here, most of the most vocal posters here, as well as our host, have previously expressed contempt for hate crime standards. Perhaps now that it isn't just you speaking in favor of them, they may feel free to do so now.

The first actionable rule of the Art of War is that you must follow moral law. As well as signing laws and enforcing policy, the president speaks and is heard by the public. He could make the establishment in itself of hate crime standards less controversial by framing them by protectionist standards we already live with. The police are rightly protected by standards corresponding with their higher visibility and higher vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity with the rest of the population and their interaction with people demonstrating they don't observe the boundaries of others. Once a cop tells you he's a cop, the penalty for injuring him increases substantially.

With hate crime standards, the higher visibility comes from their obvious conformity to a minority standard. The higher vulnerability comes from the people -- who we need the police in the first place to keep in check -- perceiving a greater ease in getting away with exploiting the greater population's indifference with the increased victimization the minorities experience.

What the next administration can do is dispel the misconception that hate crime standards do not set the precedent for greater protections for those who have a greater visibility and a greater vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity.

What the next administration can do is dispel the misconception that hate crime standards SET the precedent for greater protections for those who have a greater visibility and a greater vulnerability from their obvious non-conformity.

You give yourself too much credit, as usual.

But next time I'll be sure to put any responses to you after I respond to everybody else first. That way, it'll help keep your ego in check.

Yes, please try to do more to avoid leading my parade.

Although they have yet to do so here, most of the most vocal posters here, as well as our host, have previously expressed contempt for hate crime standards. Perhaps now that it isn't just you speaking in favor of them, they may feel free to do so now.

Much of that "contempt", as it were, was due to the arrogant illogic of the arguments made by a specific poster.

As Christine displays none of those characteristics, it should come as no surprise that her words do not produce anything resembling contempt.

There's a lesson there for anyone willing and able to learn. But you have to be willing. And able.

Much of that "contempt", as it were, was due to the arrogant illogic of the arguments made by a specific poster.

As Christine displays none of those characteristics...

Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever. Discretion is a privilege, which is neither logical or humble.

The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic. Thank you for agreeing with my assessment.

What you probably want to do is claim that you yourself do not come off, frequently, as an arrogant ass. Good luck

Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope. As much as it may make us feel good knowing that one gets extra punishment for being a bigot, it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

PAD

Supergirl winds up in the middle as she tries to protect his right to free speech, which has the blacks convinced she's on his side, as opposed to on the side of an important principle.

Boy, did I catch crap over that story from Steel fans. They were outraged that I depicted Steel siding with the students demanding that the bigoted speaker not be allowed to speak. Steel put forth all these arguments as to why it should not be tolerated, and fans slammed it, saying that the views Steel was expressing were moronic.

Here's the kicker: In crafting Steel's dialogue, I drew copiously--and in some instances swiped word for word--from letters, essays and speeches from black professors who sided with students during the several real-life incidents that inspired the Supergirl story. The arguments that readers contended were "insulting" to a man of Steel's intelligence--dialogue that some claimed I was putting in there just to make Steel look bad--were the words of men far more educated and well-read than I.

PAD

Mike inaccurately claims: Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever.

Maybe I still need the coffee to kick in, but now you've confused me.

All I mentioned was that I could see the logic (flawed, but there) of the current Misadministration directing it's attention to those outside this country. I certainly didn't condone it.

You know... I'm gonna go get more coffee before I comment any further, because my current inclination is to say something I might regret...

You know... I'm gonna go get more coffee before I comment any further, because my current inclination is to say something I might regret...

Christine, you could mainline a Starbucks and still not make sense of a typical Mike posting. That's why I gave up trying long ago.

PAD

The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic. Thank you for agreeing with my assessment.

My observation is relevant in that you are giving credit for a humility and logic no one has demonstrated. Giving and taking unmerited credit for a virtue is arrogant and illogical.

Holding others to a standard of humility and logic you refuse to be held to is hypocritical.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope. As much as it may make us feel good knowing that one gets extra punishment for being a bigot, it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

You are invalidating the state of mind of the accused in penalizing them for a given outcome. It's a wonder there are degrees of penalties for attacking or killing people. Going by what you say, all killings should be prosecuted as murder one.

Mike inaccurately claims: Christine's arbitrary siding with hate crime standards, as well as the arbitrary siding against hate crime standards, literally meets no qualification of logic or humility whatsoever.

In as much as you have withheld your reason for backing the establishment of hate crime standards, -- which I agree with, by the way -- your backing is literally arbitrary. Therefore, Mike's claim is accurate.

PAD wrote: I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope.

Agreed. Which is part of the reason I asked "if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it" earlier. I cannot see a clear cut answer.

I think the moment you start legislating the specifics of what is going through a person's mind, you're embarking on a slippery slope.

We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.

PAD wrote: Christine, you could mainline a Starbucks and still not make sense of a typical Mike posting. That's why I gave up trying long ago.

Good point. At the risk of being labeled a copy-cat, I think I'll follow your lead here.

Bill Mulligan wrote:The point was that she did NOT display any arrogance or illogic.

Thanks. :)

The question is, if the next administration chooses to focus on the hate crime problem, what can they do to fix it?

You simply portrayed the "hate crime problem" as a given, not as something as merely alleged to be a problem. You asked a question, and I answered it. It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I've said.

Don't mention it. Anyway, Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

roger: "We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment."

Well, whether or not someone *had* a motive is always considered. Accidentally putting something from a store into your pocket is different than doing it deliberately. So in a shoplifting case cares whether or not you had a motive. But what that motive is? That's not part of the law. It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve, but there aren't specific laws that make certain motives for shoplifting worse than others.

Roger, what would you say is an example of motive being part of the law other than hate crimes? All I can think of is crimes of passion vs. premeditated murder, but even that isn't really motive, it's forethought. The actual motive could be the same in either a crime of passion and a premeditated case.

I'm actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren't working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren't even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.

Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter.

[QUOTE]Most of the rules are in Leviticus. IIRC, there's no reference to homosexuality in the New Testament, other than that 12 guys traveling around together bit.

Interestingly, the prohibitions are against 2 men, showing that G-d likes a bit of Hot Lesbian Action as much as the rest of us :D[/QUOTE]

The laws in Leviticus were against the sin of men wasting their seed. The population of the tribe had to be kept up to keep the tribe strong. Thus, homosexuality and masturbation were seen as extremely sinful, while lesbianism wouldn't be a waste. Although, they probably still frowned on it.

As far as the new Testament goes, Jesus never said anything on any sexual topics (that we know of). The Christian sexual attitudes derive from Paul, who thought abstinence was best, but if you couldn't be abstinent, then you should marry. And by marriage, he meant a man and a woman. However, more of the less extreme Christian groups do seem to be getting more tolerant of homosexuality.

"Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter."

Why? If these guys have a history of violence, then they could attack someone again, but that doesn't mean that it will be premeditated. They could just get angry again. Just because a husband kills his wife out of rage doesn't mean that he won't get enraged later and kill someone again. The two situations really aren't that different.

PAD: "Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up."

I'd tend to agree with you. Judge folks on their actions, not their thoughts. But I also believe the motivation for (thought behind) an act does have relevance in being able to properly judge the act. Won't entirely excuse the act, but knowing Jean Valjean stole some bread to feed a starving child would change my opinion of what was an appropriate punishment.

Similarly, for "hate crimes" in particular, I'm wary of the slippery slope they represent and would tend to oppose making a penalty more severe because of what someone thought. But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a "hate crime" is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.

They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don't like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don't like me individually?

We're ALREADY on that slope. Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment.

Yes, I know that. Mostly it factors into determining WHETHER someone did what they were accused of doing. ("Why would the accused do something like this? Here's why...") Plus state of mind comes into play: Whether the person fully knew and understood what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his actions.

But ultimately it comes down to whether someone committed a crime, not the shadings of the why. From my understanding, the reason there are different degrees of murder has less to do with what the perp was thinking but instead whether he planned it in advance, because each step of the murder is another crime.

PAD

It make get you some leeway emotionally if you were stealing food to not starve,

Unless you're Jean Valjean.

PAD

"Just for the record, I am opposed to the notion of legislating "hate crimes." Hatred has its place in the legal system: It serves as motivation. If five guys jump me on a subway, I don't really give a crap if it's because they hate Jews, hate bald guys, hate guys with glasses, or want my wallet. I just want their asses in jail because they beat me up."

I tend to agree as well; the proper place for consideration of hatred in the legal system is as part of the person's motive, which can *already* change the category of crime which is charged. There's a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.

That said, even if there are no 'hate crimes' laws on the books, the fact of somebody's hatred for a particular ethnic group can be very relevant to their prosecution and sentencing. For a less extreme example, I would say in cases where somebody spray paints swastikas on a synagogue or burns a cross on a lawn, the prosecutor has prima facie evidence to hand of the defendants' intent to intimidate and threaten, which are crimes in themselves.

Mostly[, motive] factors into determining WHETHER someone did what they were accused of doing. ("Why would the accused do something like this? Here's why...") Plus state of mind comes into play: Whether the person fully knew and understood what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his actions.

Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.

In what's conventionally understood as a hate crime, you still need a victim. With attempted murder, you don't even need a victim -- only an intended victim.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Addressing subways (and tangentially related topics) in general:

I’ve only been to New York once— in 2000 to visit my cousins— and we took the subway for a relatively short distance. Our experience? No problems. Before we got on the train, my Mom asked someone at random how to get to the right train to take us wherever we were trying to go. He pointed the way and we got to the correct train.

The ride itself was uneventful. Slightly crowded, as I recall, but not too bad. But no weirdness took place.

On the other hand... I attended summer classes outside London (at what was then called Middlesex Polytechnic in Trent Park) in 1988, and often rode the subway to get to London. At that time, instead of no weirdness, I encountered one incident. Some guy stood up, introduced himself (by both name and nationality) to the occupants of the sparsely-populated train car, and asked something along the lines of “have you accepted Jesus into your life?” Everyone pretty much ignored him, and he soon moved on to another car.

When the guy first stood up (or maybe he was already standing), and got everyone’s attention (probably said “excuse me” or something innocuous like that), I thought he was going to ask for the time or something like that. He was young, presentable in appearance, and didn’t have the aura of a kook.

Of course the fact that he at least considered prosteltyzing a group of strangers might put a question mark next to whether he was a kook, but at least he wasn’t foaming at the mouth.
Weirdness on the subways, by the way, reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine, “A Nut in Every Car”, from his debut album, Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow Right!. In it, he describes the great deal of how for the cost of subway fare at the time (1963), you could get all manner of entertainment. At one point, he describes how one guy provided entertainment for a long stretch, received a standing ovation when he got off; and then got back on for an encore.

Speaking of Law & Order those same cousins I visited in 2000? I found out last month that various Law & Order shows have filmed inside their brownstone. The cool thing about that is that the money they receive goes to help Zac— a recent NYU film school graduate— and his budding directorial career.

Regarding crime in general (and attitudes toward safety), it’s interesting to compare the U.S. culture with that of other countries. After my six weeks in London, my parents came over and we spent a week touring Ireland. At one point we stayed at a bed and breakfast in or near Dingle Bay on the west coast of that country. The proprieters of that bed & breakfast left the key on a hook outside the front door so you could let yourself in if you came in when everyone else has retired for the night. Is there anywhere in the U.S. — even the rural U.S. — where such a thing would happen? Somehow, I doubt it. It may very well be that in some small farm town, such a practice would be perfectly safe; but I have the feeling that our collective impression about how dangerous it is today would preclude people from doing that.

Rick

P.S. For whatever it might be worth, portions of the Doctor Who episode “Mawdryn Undead” were filmed on the grounds of Middlesex Polytechnic (or as we called it “Camp Middlesex.” I didn’t know that when I was there, but sometime later, when I was watching that episode again, I said, “wait a minute....”

P.P.S. In looking up Trent Park online to confirm I correctly remembered the name of the community, I discovered a Wikipedia entry which states that some German generals and staff officers were imprisoned on the grounds, and treated with a reasonable degree of hospitality; and that many of the rooms in the mansion (where we had classes) were bugged, giving the allies access to important information. I never knew any of that when I was there. I just knew about the alleged ghost.

There's a big difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance, and it all comes down to the motivation for the act.

Well, yes, except the difference is that planning to commit a murder is a crime separate from committing a murder (as is conspiracy to commit murder.)

PAD

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. My hatred of such acts as violence against persons or property is widely, almost universally shared. We legislate well when we consider what is universally hated and what is not.

That is, all legislation concerns distinctions on morally slippery slopes. It is thus never a particularly good argument against (or for) a piece of legislation to say that it concerns a slippery slope. That moral fact about legislation being a slippery slope is a simple truism, telling us nothing.

What a slippery slope concerns has two edges -- first, as to the other, we have to ask whether what is hated by us is sufficiently definable, as to retain its "objectiveness", as to what "it" is that is universally hated. Second, though, and more critically, if we admit that we are moved by hate when we legislate, then we ought to guard against our passion, that our emotions may be deceiving our reason.

This second edge is like the adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." We must be quite careful that we do not build roads to hell for others, when we legislate. Perhaps, instead, that means that we should be building bridges to heaven, for others -- defining and punishing proposed acts as crimes according to how we might achieve, not the show of vengance of society upon the offender, but rather a display of the gracious mercy of God for the offender.

In fact, that was what I thought Christianity was all about: making real the idea and the ideal that grace and mercy, even love, should displace vengance, as the aim of society, and of the peoples thereof.

But, I have never seen such a society emerge, in the history of this world, from the principles of Christianity, as I would understand them to be. And, Christians, sadly, seem to be extremely reluctant to give up the idea of retribution and of vengance in this world -- almost as if they did not refuse to believe, in practice, in the justice of a world to come. How else could one explain, for instance, the horrid affection that many Christians (among others) display for the macabre institution that we call "the death penalty"? A Christian society would unanimously abolish such an atrocity.

Similarly, the idea of any infliction of punishment before a conviction under due process of law is most abhorrent, at least to me. Yet, on the talk shows last night, or for weeks recently, we find considerable evidence of support for the ideas and practices of "torture", in total violation of the aspirational "nulla poena sine lege" standard. But, could any truly principled Christian society even remotely endorse any act akin to "torture"? Why, then, is so much of Christianity, in America, simply saying, "well, if torture has a chance in hell of working, then it is morally acceptable"? Such blatant utility calculi ought to confront the edges of the slippery slopes that true morality commands that it face.

(It is also hard to ignore the history of Inquisitions and other public pogroms, even those carried out in the name of Christianity and of Christendom -- as to how such perversions of fundamental Christianity could ever have happened.)

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can't criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that's what we have to do, anyway, as a society -- until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them -- when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings -- in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hell.

>it still has too many echoes of the beginnings of the Thought Police for my comfort level.

What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people "your life is worth less than someone else's". Yes, realistically that's the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?

>dialogue that some claimed I was putting in there just to make Steel look bad--were the words of men far more educated and well-read than I.

Which just goes to prove the logic behind some role-play game systems where intelligence and wisdom are considered separate attributes.

Hate crimes? Yes, I do. We can't criminalize hate and indifference tantamount to it, easily, but that's what we have to do, anyway, as a society -- until the day when peace reigns over all the earth. And, how will that miracle finally happen? Oh, we know, yes, we know that we must learn to love one another, and to make it ever more possible for us to show that love, and not hate, inspires them -- when we confront our mortal selves as moral beings -- in the very ways that we write laws, to announce possible ways to Heaven, or not to pronounce on some roads to Hell.

Well, first of all, the correct quote is "Hell is paved with good intentions." Not "the road to hell." That's a popular misquote.

And second, no: We in fact cannot criminalize hate and indifference, or at least should not. You cannot legislate what people can and should think. If nothing else, how far do you take it? Bigotry is typically learned behavior: Do you also prosecute the parents in the spirit of being accessories to the crime? After all, if they taught him to hate, why should get off with no punishment?

You criminalize actions, not thoughts. People can think anything they want, but must be judged on what they did. Or don't you believe in "hate the sin but love the sinner?"

PAD

"Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive." -- Mike

No, it's not. It's a crime of action. If all it took to be guilty of this was to think about, or want to kill someone, we'd all likely be in trouble. Not to say that everyone has had some murderous though at some time, but I think it's pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has, at one point in their life, at least wanted to or strongly thought about hurting someone.

Attempted murder is just that...it's a murder that failed...the shot goes wild, the stab wound isn't fatal, the deadly trap doesn't go off as planned. In other words, but for some intervening event that usually, but not always, is very close temporally to the attempt, it'd be murder. Attempted murder isn't a crime of motive, it's a crime of failed action.

"Motive is ALWAYS considered for both determination of guilt and of punishment."

No, it's not. Many crimes just are, regardless of motive. Manslaughter is one. Specifcially, it's a motiveless, or even an anti-motive crime. You could be action with the specific intent to NOT kill, and still through the course of your actions commit manslaughter.

That's not to say that juries don't, or shouldn't, consider motive during their deliberations. That's up to the individual jury, and even juror.

But notice what PAD is saying...mens rea, or motive in laymans' terms, has long been incorporated into criminal statutes. Murder is defined, archaically, as the act of killing with malice aforethought. Implicit in that defintion is that the act was intended, the perp meant to kill his victim.

But hate crimes tack on extra punishment because of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. If those kids had not been christian, but instead just attacked the other kids, they'd be eligible for a certain level of punishment. Under a hate crime system, the very same act...different only because of the utternaces of "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Chanuka"...would allow for a more harsh sentence. It's extra punishment because of the nature of the thoughts, not the nature of the crime. The crime is exactly the same...assault with intent to inflict bodily harm, let's say.

Consider that California's Three Strikes sentencing laws were struck down. Why? Because it applies punishment to the criminal based on the nature of the criminal, not the nature of the crime. Hate crime laws do the same, which should be something in the purview of the jury, not the legislature.

Alex wrote: Also, isn't there a difference between a husband who kills his wife in a moment of rage and someone who prowls the streets looking for someone to hurt (like the jackasses in the story)? I'm much more concerned about the latter.

In all seriousness, it wouldn't make a difference to the wife. Whether killed by her spouse or by a predator on the street, the result is the same.

Attempted murder is a crime solely of motive.

No, it's not. It's a crime of action. If all it took to be guilty of this was to think about, or want to kill someone, we'd all likely be in trouble. Not to say that everyone has had some murderous though at some time, but I think it's pretty safe to say that nearly everyone has, at one point in their life, at least wanted to or strongly thought about hurting someone.

Attempted murder is just that...it's a murder that failed...the shot goes wild, the stab wound isn't fatal, the deadly trap doesn't go off as planned. In other words, but for some intervening event that usually, but not always, is very close temporally to the attempt, it'd be murder. Attempted murder isn't a crime of motive, it's a crime of failed action.

My comment you cite is referring to the wikipedia article:

Unlike murder, which requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill alone.

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim. With a hate crime, you still need a victim.

We already tolerate more severe thought-policing than the establishment of hate crime standards.

That same wikipedia page also says:

"The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Attempted murder is an Offence of specific intent"

So if someone just *thinks* about killing another person, there won't be an attempted murder charge. He has to actually do something.

Mike: "With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim."

No, Mike. That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder. And even then, you technically do have a victim. Bobb is correct in his statements regarding the matter. Wikipedia, fun for a laugh that it may be, is hardly a reputable source for anything these days. Try finding a law university site or something along the lines of www.findlaw.com or Blacks Law Dictionary.

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment.

Diagnostic criteria;
a grandiose sense of self-importance; believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people; takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy; is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her; arrogant behavior.

I'm actually in favor of hate crime distinctions. Sure, the end result for the victims is the same, but I think when it comes to prosecution we need the distinction. The standard laws for murder and assault simply weren't working for a lot of minorities, because society was pretty much at the point where they weren't even considering those acts crimes. When you start specifically labeling those acts as crimes and prosecuting them differently, it puts a spotlight on them and forces people to look at them differently. I guess you could look at it as PR as much as anything.

I think society has advanced to the point now where crimes against minorities are considered crimes. And if it hasn't then why would we expect Hate Crime Legislation to be any more effective? If the problem is that laws are being ignored it will probably not help to just pass more laws.

But thanks for stating you position in a reasonable, civil matter. It's important to see that not everyone on the pro-Hate Crime legislation side is an ass.

But in a recent comment on this topic posted to another blog, it was pointed out that a "hate crime" is, in a certain manner, a larger crime as it is an assault not only on the individual but on a larger group.

They phrased it better than I am here, but it gave me some pause for thought. Perhaps the person who attacks me because they don't like the Irish should be should punished more severely than the one who attacks me because they don't like me individually?

That's a good argument, Sean. You could say that hate crimes against specific groups of people diminishes society in a way that random acts of violence do not.

I think that the harm caused by 1- unequal application of any such laws 2- the resulting antagonism between ethnic groups (or whatever is used to create the groups that hate crime legislation will be applied to) and 3- the potential for misuse and abuse of such laws will be greater than the good that will be achieved. And since the good that could come from them would be equally achieved by just better enforcement of the laws we have, the risk/benefit ratio is not favorable. In my opinion.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind. Since nobody other than you believes this to be true I simply chalk it up to another manifestation of your likely disorder.

What bothers me about it is that it sets up a justice triage of society telling people "your life is worth less than someone else's". Yes, realistically that's the way it is, but why institutionalize it? Police? Makes sense, but does it work? Cops still seem to be getting gunned down anyway. Not much of a deterrent?

But it's hard to say that there is no deterrent. Cops are also put into the position of being possible victims far often than most of us are. The average person should get through a week without having some drunk with a gun in a position to blow them away. A cop may face that daily. The fact that so few are actually shot and killed may be, in part, due to the knowledge of what may happen to the shooter. That said, I wouldn't mind it if every murderer was treated as though the person he or she killed was a cop.

1 i myself am a christian, but isn't jews Gods chosen people? so why the hate? also, christians believe in the fact that Christ chose to die for everybody. He could have stopped it. Jesus loved all people regardless of their religion. why can't christians understand that?

That same wikipedia page also says:

The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Attempted murder is an Offence of specific intent

So if someone just *thinks* about killing another person, there won't be an attempted murder charge. He has to actually do something.

Yes, to demonstrate the motive the law does not tolerate. Hate crime laws to not depend on *thought intolerance* any more than conspiracy to murder charges.

No, Mike. That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder. And even then, you technically do have a victim.

Where you have a victim, you have, in the most general sense, an imposition made on that victim. What imposition is inherently made on one targeted for murder?

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

The question doesn't seem to be who I am than it seems to be who are you without me.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), is defined as a mental illness primarily characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment.

Diagnostic criteria;
a grandiose sense of self-importance; believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people; takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy; is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her; arrogant behavior.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

I think society has advanced to the point now where crimes against minorities are considered crimes. And if it hasn't then why would we expect Hate Crime Legislation to be any more effective?

The same is true for police. What justification is there for cop-killer laws mutually exclusive of the need for hate crime laws?

[cited out of order for relevence] Cops are also put into the position of being possible victims far often than most of us are. The average person should get through a week without having some drunk with a gun in a position to blow them away. A cop may face that daily. The fact that so few are actually shot and killed may be, in part, due to the knowledge of what may happen to the shooter.

The part I just bolded? That justification applies to hate crime standards.

That guy in the anti-Semitic attack article who's also going away for assaulting a black guy? He's choosing the obvious non-conformists to the majority. His attitude increases crime, and you would give him the same punishment other offenders feel the need to have some acquaintance with their victims to do.

I don't see how your generosity to those who feed off the most vulnerability segments of society just isn't plain soft.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005874.html#373296

The posts are not only in your mind, but the actual acts of you proving something are entirely in your mind.

Mike: "If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced."

Nope, sorry, still wrong and play again some other time.

Your argument is still flawed at its core. However, having just pointed out to Mulligan the dead endedness of debating with your density and looking at the stupidity in your last few posts, I'm not going to keep going with this one. You know almost nothing of the law, you live in your own little world and you're dense as hell. Anyone else wants to discuss it, fine. Somebody else wants to waste time with Mike? Do it without me.

~B?)

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

Nope, sorry, still wrong and play again some other time.

You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren't inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.

There are few things I would rather not explore than what it is that gratifies you. I can only assume they are on par with the rest of your thought processes.

Me: Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

you: You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

* my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
* your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
* today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

Oh the posts certainly exist and, as always, I'm delighted to see you refer to previous incidents of you looking like an ass. But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with. I go back and forth on this. Are you a jerk and a bully, in which case you need to be treated as such, or are you just too far gone to understand what you are, in which case benign neglect is the kindest course of action?

At any rate, the fact that, despite your best efforts, an actual discussion on the issue of hate crimes has taken place here certainly demonstrates that, despite your claims, no "contempt" for the issue exists among the host and posters. Just contempt for idiotic arguments, made idiotically.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.

Yeeeaaah, thanks for not disagreeing I don't qualify as narcissistic.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind....

Oh the posts certainly exist...

It's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with.

I'm simply responding to accusations directed at me. If you don't like it, don't provide them.

Unless you demonstrate how holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, you haven't giving me a reason to believe that that isn't what it literally takes to qualify. It's a straightforward 1:1 relationship:

Holding others to a standard you refused to be held to : hypocrisy

n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Best of the season, whatever it may be (even to those of us who don't have a season)

Regards, the Rev.

The Reverend Mr. Black: "If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering."

Asphalt.

And besides, if someone assaults a complete stranger, causing either serious injuries or death, doesn't it stand to reason that, *on average*, it is in itself a 'hate' crime. While some people may kill out of what they think is love (example: a father in here Canada who killed his severely handicapped/retarded daughter because he couldn't stand seeing her constantly in pain) I daresay they're the tiny exception. So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?

"So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?"

At the risk of making myself a target for the racism badge, it's because minority groups get vocal, and get legislation pushed through that add extra protection for crimes against them. It's what some would call affirmative action from the criminal justice system. Beat a white man to death to steal his wallet, and you get say 10 years. But if a white man beats a black man to death because he's black, regardless of whether he takes his wallet, and he gets 20 years. It's symptomatic of the same concept that allows the idea of reparations to come up ever so often.

Which is not at all to say that minorities have not been exposed to discrimination for decades or centuries, or that minorities are not targeted for certain crimes because of their skin color/religion/sexual orientation. But it should highlight how out system allows for affirmative action mentality to be injected into the CJ system.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying, but

"You heard it here, folks: victims of crime aren't inconvenienced. Whatever, Jerry."

First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while. Just for the record, I'll stack my legal training against whatever's posted to Wikipedia any day.

Now you're trying to redifine conspiracy to commit murder. See, there is a victim in this crime...but first let's look at the target of the conspiracy. If that target remains unaware of the conspiracy, I guess you can say he's not inconcienenced by it all. On the other than, at some point..say, during the trial...said target is going to be made aware that others were plotting his death. I'd say most of us, presented with that information, would at least feel a little freaked out. We might freak out so far as to wonder who else is planning to kill us? That might cause us some level of inconvience as we start jumping at every bang or crack that we hear.

But more than that, let's look at the real victim of a conspiracy. After all, what actions are involved other than some planning and plotting? Maybe some stockpiling of weapons and supplies, possibly some surveillance on the target, mapping of routes, etc. But taken individually, none of those actions are illegal, right?

Society is the victim of a conspiracy. That's a hard concept for some folks to grasp, and it does continue to be debated today. But if conspiracies are not prevented...if society has to wait to stop some planned action until said plan is in process...the cost to society is higher. Conspiring to break the law is a crime against society.

And it's not about thought. Just sitting around and talking about killing someone isn't a crime (unless that someone is the president). There have to be related actions that indicate more than just intent, just as with attempted murder.

As for hate crimes requiring a victim, that's wrong, too. If someone puts a burning cross out on the highway, in a public right of way, who's the victim? If someone spray paints an anti-semetic phrase on the side of a public building, who's the victim? Both of these acts would be covered by hate crime laws, yet both lack a target, a vitcim to be inconvienenced.

And besides, if someone assaults a complete stranger, causing either serious injuries or death, doesn't it stand to reason that, *on average*, it is in itself a 'hate' crime. While some people may kill out of what they think is love (example: a father in here Canada who killed his severely handicapped/retarded daughter because he couldn't stand seeing her constantly in pain) I daresay they're the tiny exception. So why, exactly, do we need 'hate crime' laws when we've already got them?

We don't have judges saying, "Your assailant didn't know you before he attacked you, so I'm going to tack on 5 years to his sentence." We literally do not have the fairness you are giving the system credit for having. Hate crime standards, if nothing else, establish that the assailant and his or her victim were truly unacquainted with each other. That, exactly, is why we need hate crime standards.

Violent criminals typically have some acquaintance with their victims, where the victim has some control over his acquaintance with his or her assailant, and the punishment standards have been established by precedent accordingly. If you want to frame it as increasing the penalty where the victim had no connection to his or her assailant that's fine with me. But that sure-as-fricking-hell isn't what we have now.

True Stranger Assault™ is some obvious chickenshit minorities have to go through that people who enjoy some kind of privilege are too soft to accept they don't comprehend. Where the boundaries of hate crime are violated, the victim had as little control as anyone can have over what's happened to him or her, short of refusing all opportunities to leave his house. Even with rape, a modicum of control is attributed to the victim in how she dresses (which is why such accounts are prohibited in a rape trial). What's the excuse for denying stiffer penalties for a truly acquaintanceless assault?

Stop evaluating yourselves by your privileges, and consider evaluating yourself by the privileges you can do without. There are people who go through true stranger-attacks, and the white patriarchy can't see that beyond, "but enough about you -- what about me?" You can choose to be strong.

The Reverend Mr. Black: If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Good attempts.

Heavan is paved with clouds. Duh!

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim.

[Jerry] That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder.

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while.

The resolve to rephrase implies an admission of error.

Therefore, you are wrong in saying I admitted no error. How urgent will you make your admission, counselor?

If that target remains unaware of the conspiracy, I guess you can say he's not inconcienenced by it all.

It's a wonder anyone feels the need to portray me as unreasonable.

On the other than, at some point..say, during the trial...said target is going to be made aware that others were plotting his death.

That isn't from the action of the accused, but the court. If the judge eats, does that fill the stomach of the accused or any witnesses?

And [CtCM is] not about thought. Just sitting around and talking about killing someone isn't a crime (unless that someone is the president). There have to be related actions that indicate more than just intent, just as with attempted murder.

Hate crime standards are no more a thought intolerance law than CtCM.

As for hate crimes requiring a victim, that's wrong, too. If someone puts a burning cross out on the highway, in a public right of way, who's the victim? If someone spray paints an anti-semetic phrase on the side of a public building, who's the victim? Both of these acts would be covered by hate crime laws, yet both lack a target, a vitcim to be inconvienenced.

Uh, yeah, I'm not going to disagree that takes hate crime standards too far, but that ain't within the "sitting around thinking about" slack given to CtCM everyone keeps portraying hate crime laws as denying, either. My point in comparing it to CtCM is to demonstrate the "thought crime" angle to challenging hate crime standards is just plain wrong, and you only seem to be helping me establish that.

I think it's been fairly well established that a black who kills a white will likely get more jail time than a white who kills a black. And both probably get more time than if a Black kills another Black.

I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man and a mother who kills her kids usually gets way less than you'd think.

The other factor in all this is publicity--if the story hits the papers with a big splash it will probably end up with a bigger punishment.

As for your hypothetical...it reminds me of the old jay Leno joke about "senseless killings". "A man was killed today on broadway for $10...another senseless killing. Meanwhile, in Queens, another man was killed for $1000--very sensible"

"I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man"

Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn't get into the causes. Women's prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.

As for your hypothetical...it reminds me of the old jay Leno joke about "senseless killings". "A man was killed today on broadway for $10...another senseless killing. Meanwhile, in Queens, another man was killed for $1000--very sensible"

Yeah, it's a wonder anyone should feel the need to weigh senseless crime and "sensible crime" together with equal gravity, by challenging hate crime standards.

If Hell is paved with good intentions, what is Heaven paved with? Just wondering.

Murdered titans and frost giants.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying

Sometimes, it just isn't worth the effort of trying to convince someone that 2 + 2 != 5, as it does in Mike's world.

Mike, I'm not sure why I'm trying

Considering you haven't attributed your criticism to anything I've said, it's no wonder.

Posted by Jason M. Bryant

"I believe it's also more likely that a man who kills a woman will get more time than a woman who kills a man"

Actually, I read a few years back that women serve longer average sentances for murder than men. I have no idea why, the article didn't get into the causes. Women's prisons are less crowded so there is less push for early release? Women do a higher percentage of premeditated murders? Just guesses.

Because a man who shoots his wife's lover and/or his worthless cheating bitch wife is defending his honour and the sanctity of marriage but a woman who catches her husband with anoter woman and shoots him is over-reacting?

Cf "Miss Otis Regrets" or the Saudi rape victim's sentence (which was increased on appeal).

An attorney friend [*not* one of the all-time great comic letterhacks] says that defense attorneys - at least in the New Orleans area, where he practices - would often rather try black clients before all-white juries than black or mixed ones. Apparently (my theory, now, not something he said specifically), the way that jury selection works, backs who wind up on juries tend to be on average of higher socio-economic/educational status and to be disapproving of activity that makes the black community look bad (or palys into the hands of racists).

Y'know, Craig, it's becoming clear that your friends here are doing you a disservice.

Y'see, Peter thinks I'm stupid, and he behaves accordingly. He treats posts he sees as stupid with indifference as he does mine.

In contrast to this appropriate treatment to posts one considers stupid are your friends, who invest time venting disgust on me with the urgent need to portray me as stupid. This urgent need to portray me as stupid demonstrate I'm not stupid.

Craig, you are stupid. You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends' behavior, you're using the behavior that demonstrates I'm not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.

I'm sorry you have to hear this from me, who has no fidelity to your inner-harmony, but you don't have friends who are looking out for you. Peter has tried to say as much to y'all, nicely, on numerous occasions, but you didn't listen.

Alright, folks, yeah Mike comes across as an arrogant s.o.b., but why reduce the blog to a long list of post amount to not much more than name calling? Just a thought.

Poor Mike. Nothing left in the tank.

But,as usual, you get it wrong. It isn't that you're stupid, in the sense of a lack of intelligence. It's that you act like a jackass. Now, one could argue that acting like a jackass is a stupid thing to do--it would certainly tend to lower the quality of life for most people. But hey, maybe you're one of those people who have no use for normal human relationships. Being the skunk at the garden party gives you the same gratification (uh-oh!) that those not exhibiting your, um, mindset get from friendship and family.

But it's yet another manifestation of your narcissism that you define stupidity as How Mike Is Treated. Only in a world where you matter, Mike. Not this one.

You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends' behavior, you're using the behavior that demonstrates I'm not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.

I get a kick out of lines like this, because I suspect you have nfc what they actually mean.

Yet, I'm the stupid one?

Pot, meet kettle.

I really wish this site had an ignore feature, because I would definitely use it. I suspect everybody else would as well.

And in more NYC subway news:

Monday night:
A woman was pushed on to the tracks by another woman and saved by a pair of good samaritans. The shover was arrested and is being charged; the intended victim hopes to be able to thank her rescuers.

Tuesday:
NEW YORK -- New York City Police are investigating a report by a man who says he was assaulted on a subway train by a group of women who videotaped the attack and posted it on the Internet.

I wonder if that transit spokesman still thinks pole dancers are the "last thing we want". Somebody really should ask him/her.

Yeah, an ignore feature would be great--I'll pledge an extra $25 above and beyond the $10 I'm sending anyway for that feature, as long as I could turn it on and off at whim for those times when I want a moment of stupidity.

And I have no doubt that Mike would keep posting anyway, no matter how few people were listening. What options does he have?

Of course, we could all just exercise collective will and ignore him the old fashioned way...but hey, it's human nature to slow down for train wrecks, even metaphorical ones.

Craig - Where online did you find those? You have me curious. I'm wondering if that "gang of women" had a motive other than random internet video "fun"

w*w.inform.com/related_content/1312094,1

(replace the * with another w)

w*w.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_dad_sorry_for_a_train_teens_actions-1.html

is even better--has the video as well. Punks, from the looks of it. I pity the poor father who recognized his kid as one of the beaters.

Thanks for the link.

Well, so much for my giving them the benefit of the doubt. Sheesh.

"Well, first of all, the correct quote is 'Hell is paved with good intentions.' Not 'the road to hell.' That's a popular misquote." says Peter David

If I had wished to point to a quotation, against which some standard of correctness might apply, I would have done so. Instead, I referred to the adage, as it happens to exist in popular usage -- a fact to which various dictionaries of the language attest. Hence, your remark is somewhat off-base.

You are right to cling to the idea, from criminal law, that we aim to punish a man for his acts, and not for his thoughts, per se.

However, while the target of the law is an act, the aim of the law is always the thought that a man has.

We wish, so I claim, that every man would eschew all thinking that willingly, or contemptuously, brings violence "wrongfully" upon the person or the property of others.

That is, the end toward which we legislate, as a society, is the universal avoidance of such "wrong" thinking. This latter end, though, is not at all necessarily the same as a society that wishes to impose universal "right" thinking.

Between these two places for thinking to stand, there might stretch one of Cardozo's bridges. Between these lies a chasm, which may have -- at some points -- some slopes that are steep, some slopes that are slippery.

Unless we, as a society build it and maintain it, no bridge will cross this chasm. We thus ever and always risk the slippery slopes, when we legislate. That was one of my points. We wish to define the law, objectively, as to acts demonstratively bringing "provable" harm to others. However, our legislative aim remains the thoughts of the people, collectively -- which is the thinking that we as people do, as possible legislators or putative criminals.

Hence, I raised both of my moral points -- against the death penalty and against torture. I claimed that neither of these practices was compatible with fundamental Christian principles, nor with belief in the justice of a world to come.

There is an easy, objective test to this claim. Where it is written, in the NT, "thou shalt punish, eye for an eye, ..., showing neither mercy nor any grace?" Or, where is it written that "thou shalt torture suspects, when thou dost think they know something important to thine own well being"... In fact, the NT Scriptures seem to point our thinking in a rather different direction: not toward a defense of self, but toward the extreme, of exposure of one's own vulnerability, against the possible aggressions of others. "If a man asks you for your coat, give him your shirt as well."

The point, here, would be that a Christian society would not aim its laws as negatively, towards punishment, but would focus positively, towards the dual good ends of rehabilitation of the offender and restoration of the injured, at the worst. (*As a society thinks, in its heart, in writing its legislation, so it is.*)

Yes, our aim, as a society, is always and ever must be the reformation of man -- of his ways of thinking that lead him to wrong-doing, especially to be doing-wrong, or even doing-nothing when he could be doing-good.

(And, perhaps, I should disclose that I am not a Christian, but a Jew -- but I nonethless find no significant difference arises when, instead, I refer to what a Jewish society would do, if it were truly following the laws of Moses.)

On a completely unrelated note, I spotted the following article today and thought I'd share since I don't think glow-in-the-dark cats are an every day news story...

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/science/sns-ap-skorea-glowing-cats,0,77499.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

Have you noticed that whenever scientists want to demonstrate some funky new advance in genetic engineering they usually do it by making things glow in the dark?

http://www.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/breeding-hybridization/3452-glow-dark-orchids.html

(glow in the dark orchids)

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/fishnews/a/glofish.htm

(glow in the dark fish)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

(Glow in the dark pigs)

http://oddanimals.com/unusualanimals/glowinthedarkrabbit.html

(glow in the dark rabbits)

So when's the first GITD human?

Have you noticed that whenever scientists want to demonstrate some funky new advance in genetic engineering they usually do it by making things glow in the dark?

w*w.rv-orchidworks.com/orchidtalk/breeding-hybridization/3452-glow-dark-orchids.html

(glow in the dark orchids)

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/fishnews/a/glofish.htm

(glow in the dark fish)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4605202.stm

(Glow in the dark pigs)

http://oddanimals.com/unusualanimals/glowinthedarkrabbit.html

(glow in the dark rabbits)

So when's the first GITD human?

Yipes... Did I strike everyone speechless?

Yes.

Yeah, an ignore feature would be great--I'll pledge an extra $25 above and beyond the $10 I'm sending anyway for that feature, as long as I could turn it on and off at whim for those times when I want a moment of stupidity.

I have an ignore feature: It's called my brain. When I see Mike's name at the top of a posting, I tend to skip right over it. Best of all...it's free!

Instead, I referred to the adage, as it happens to exist in popular usage -- a fact to which various dictionaries of the language attest. Hence, your remark is somewhat off-base.

It's not an adage; it's a mangling of a quote typically attributed to Samuel Johnson. A wrong quote is a wrong quote is a wrong quote. Popular usage doesn't make it right.

You are right to cling to the idea, from criminal law, that we aim to punish a man for his acts, and not for his thoughts, per se. However, while the target of the law is an act, the aim of the law is always the thought that a man has.

Only to the degree that it establishes whether he committed the crime, and whether he understood it, as has been made abundantly clear by others in this thread.

However, our legislative aim remains the thoughts of the people, collectively -- which is the thinking that we as people do, as possible legislators or putative criminals.

I would agree with you if you were right. The legislative actions should and typically do involve the actions that people take, not what they were thinking about at the time.

Hence, I raised both of my moral points -- against the death penalty and against torture. I claimed that neither of these practices was compatible with fundamental Christian principles, nor with belief in the justice of a world to come.

Except it's irrelevant. The problem with the death penalty is that runs up against the legal prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment...not to mention that it's applied unfairly. The problem with torture is that it runs afoul of the Geneva Convention.

All of which doesn't detract from the notion that trying to legislate a person's thoughts remains a bad idea.

PAD

Speaking of misquotes, there's one that drives me crazy. One thing that I've found important in my work is consistent feedback. If the people using my product don't get consistent feedback on whether they're doing something right or not, it's logical that people will have trouble figuring out what to do.

But more than once, someone I work with has heard me talk about consistency and said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

At first this annoyed me because it's a stupid saying. There's no justification for it, it just sounds clever so they repeat it without giving any explanation for *why* consistency is bad. Then I looked it up. The actual quote is from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

*That* makes sense. I still think it is a little redundant since anything foolish is likely to be a bad thing, but at least it makes sense. The message is that consistency is good, but not so good that you should apply it without considering anything else. Yet people have mangled the quote so much that they're foolishly touting the value of *inconsistency*.

christine--tried to send a few other glow in the dark animal references but the filter wouldn't allow it. google glow in the dark animals--they've done pigs, rabbits, fish, orchids...I feel left out.

I have an ignore feature: It's called my brain. When I see Mike's name at the top of a posting, I tend to skip right over it. Best of all...it's free!

I know, I know...there's always that chance he'll smack his head and say "Cripes! I've been a putz!" and use his intellect for something more productive. Teachers have to be optimists.

I know, I know...there's always that chance he'll smack his head and say "Cripes! I've been a putz!" and use his intellect for something more productive.

I really don't think there is any chance of that. Sorry.

PAD

I agree with PAD. I'm feeling pretty bad about trying to talk to him on the Dark Tower thread. If I had left things alone the thread might not have been derailed.

Quoted from Jason M. Byrant: "But more than once, someone I work with has heard me talk about consistency and said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

At first this annoyed me because it's a stupid saying. There's no justification for it, it just sounds clever so they repeat it without giving any explanation for *why* consistency is bad"

Not to mention the irony involved when anyone uses the expression more than once.

You know what the only thing about these mass murderers and spree killers that impresses me is? They kill themselves when they are about to be caught. They honestly do the country a great service by not letting us waste out time, energy, and money going through trials just to prove that they are insane idiots.

Another adage---

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day"

Wrong. By definition, a clock is a timekeeping device. If it is broken, it is not keeping time, ergo, it is no longer a clock. In can be, if ornately designed, a work of art, but mostly it is now an expensive doorstop.

I've heard reports of glow-in-the-dark animals near the Love Canal.

You know what the only thing about these mass murderers and spree killers that impresses me is? They kill themselves when they are about to be caught. They honestly do the country a great service by not letting us waste out time, energy, and money going through trials just to prove that they are insane idiots.

Yeah, except every time I read about someone like that, I always think, Couldn't he have just killed himself FIRST and spared everyone else from his insanity?

PAD

[Craig] Sometimes, it just isn't worth the effort of trying to convince someone that 2 + 2 != 5, as it does in Mike's world.

Y'know, Craig, it's becoming clear that your friends here are doing you a disservice.

Y'see, Peter thinks I'm stupid, and he behaves accordingly. He treats posts he sees as stupid with indifference as he does mine.

In contrast to this appropriate treatment to posts one considers stupid are your friends, who invest time venting disgust on me with the urgent need to portray me as stupid. This urgent need to portray me as stupid demonstrate I'm not stupid.

Craig, you are stupid. You seem to have no urgent need to portray me as stupid, but going by your friends' behavior, you're using the behavior that demonstrates I'm not stupid in an introspectively-deficient attempt to portray me as stupid.

I'm sorry you have to hear this from me, who has no fidelity to your inner-harmony, but you don't have friends who are looking out for you. Peter has tried to say as much to y'all, nicely, on numerous occasions, but you didn't listen.

[Bill]

Poor Mike. Nothing left in the tank.

But,as usual, you get it wrong. It isn't that you're stupid, in the sense of a lack of intelligence.

I wasn't talking to you, Bill.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with.

I'm simply responding to accusations directed at me. If you don't like it, don't provide them.

Unless you demonstrate how holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, you haven't giving me a reason to believe that that isn't what it literally takes to qualify. It's a straightforward 1:1 relationship:

Holding others to a standard you refused to be held to : hypocrisy

n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

It's that you act like a jackass. Now, one could argue that acting like a jackass is a stupid thing to do--it would certainly tend to lower the quality of life for most people.

By the standards of debating as it's known in western civilization, if you don't demonstrate how your holding others to standards you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, my assessment of you stands.

As hypocrisy is a moral deficiency, and being a jack-ass is not, I don't know how it doesn't suck to be you, not having a soul and all.

Narcissism implies gratification. You haven't demonstrated gratification.

Using your own bizarro standards, your lack of reply to the other points implies admission of their accuracy.

Yeeeaaah, thanks for not disagreeing I don't qualify as narcissistic.

But hey, maybe you're one of those people who have no use for normal human relationships. Being the skunk at the garden party gives you the same gratification (uh-oh!) that those not exhibiting your, um, mindset get from friendship and family.

I remember a recent NPR interview with a jazz musician with tourettes (not the guy in Sacks's Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat). He said in jazz it didn't matter if you had tourettes or were a junkie or whatever, as long as you were able show up and play jazz.

Well, where I work, it doesn't matter what navel-gazing I do, as long as I complete my work. You are the only hypocrite I know. If you were to disappear from my radar, I'd have to find a new hypocrite to interact with. I'm going to take a guess and say having hypocrites not be able to stand me is a good problem, if it can be said to a problem at all.

But it's yet another manifestation of your narcissism that you define stupidity as How Mike Is Treated. Only in a world where you matter, Mike. Not this one.

I keep wondering why anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say, and no one ever provides a reason. Asserting narcissism with no evidence of narcissism = neediness.

Mike Leung, ladies and gentlemen. Dance, little troll.

Yeah, except every time I read about someone like that, I always think, Couldn't he have just killed himself FIRST and spared everyone else from his insanity?

You have to wonder at the mindset. Obviously they don't believe in heaven or hell...'cause, you know, it's no mystery where they'd be going. They intend to die so it isn't like they are going to benefit from any notoriety, they aren't going to be the next Charlie Manson. Doing it just to take out a few people when you check out is about as evil as it comes.

If I was in charge of the news I'd refer to this kind of person just as "the shooter" or something--go out of my way to NOT mention his or her name any more than is absolutely necessary. Take away any thought in the mind of the next loon that this is how to get your name in the paper. As it is now, it's undeniable that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are names that will be remembered for far longer than they ever could have hoped for. Maybe if the next one is referred to as simply "Another Dylan Klebold wannabe" it will lose some of its allure.

But probably not--applying reason to lunatics is probably missing the point.

"You have to wonder at the mindset. Obviously they don't believe in heaven or hell...'cause, you know, it's no mystery where they'd be going."

Not necessarily, there are a lot of varieties of crazy. Some of these guys think they are divine retribution. Some believe in heaven and hell, but they don't understand why killing people would ever be considered a bad thing. Some know they're going to hell as absolute certainly, so they have nothing to lose.

Personally, I don't think the news should give these guys significant coverage at all. They stand outside the cordoned off area, hanging on their every action for hour after hour. This makes stars out of these guys whether you know their names or not. I don't know the name of the Columbine shooters, but I sure know what anyone is talking about when they mention Columbine.

If I was in charge of the news I'd refer to this kind of person just as "the shooter" or something--go out of my way to NOT mention his or her name any more than is absolutely necessary.

Instead, the media goes out of their way to mention everything they can about these deranged people: their names, who their parents are, their friends, where they went to school, what weapons they had, how much ammo they were packing, what music they listened to, video games they played, suicide notes, websites visited lately, whether they got laid in high school, pictures, and so on.

The media constantly gives these bastards exactly what they want - all the attention in the world.

Yeah, and they get it wrong. Remember how the Columbine shooters were picked on by jocks and carrying out a twisted revenge. Didn't happen. These guys weren't outcasts--though they certainly should have been--and they were targeting anything with a pulse.

I’ll go you one better, Bill. “Shooters” still sounds cool to some people. If I ran a news network, idiots like that were only referred to as “the subjects” when not actually discussing the act itself.

My reasons would be twofold here. First, despite the opinions expressed by many back in the Tech Shooter debates, the subjects’ families often share zero real responsibility for the killing sprees that take place. It’s got to be hard enough on the parents, brothers and sisters to have this happen without the family’s name and history being dragged through the press rounds 24/7. There’s no need for the press or it’s ever more tabloid news loving audience to add to their pain without need.

Second, I just don’t want to see any more of these assholes get the immortality. Once they become immortals in the pop culture pantheon, they tend to evolve as time goes by. Add a couple of decades, and sick freak killers like Manson suddenly become interesting or cool and start showing up on t-shirts, flags and posters that are purchased and displayed by idiots that have no real clue what kind of monster that he is. Add several decades or more to the time gone and you get popular culture romanticizing the scum. Bonnie and Clyde were cowardly scum who were despised by the common man (since it was actually the common man that they robbed) and far from being “beautiful people” in any way shape or form. Pop culture had its way with them and turned them into tragic folk heroes and the man that brought them in into a cowardly jerk who ambushed and murdered America’s much loved duo. The Chicago Mob was, from top to bottom, filled with lowlife scum. Pop culture took the big names, made them immortals and romanticized then to the point that everyone talks about what great, gentlemanly criminals we used to have back in the day compared to nowadays. Nothings really changed, we just have poor memories and get our education from pop culture.

No one would think today that there was even a possibility that, say, twenty plus years from now we’d see kids walking around with t-shirts of the image of the Columbine twits snarling into the camera or the Tech twit holding his gun to his head or pointing it at the camera, would they. But who from the time of the Manson killings would believe that a mere two decades later high school kids would be wearing Manson t-shirts and posters?

I can’t help but think that there’ll be at least a few in schools by the time Ian hits high school. They best way, I think, to keep from adding to the t-shirts vendors future sales is to keep the shitheads as anonymous as possible and keep the victims memory alive. If the victims and the way they died were kept alive the way the Bonnie and Clydes, Mob killers and Mansons were, immortalized by our culture the way that the killers were, there would likely be less romanticizing of the scum.

Oh, if anyone thinks Columbine t-shirts are a stretch… Someone already did put together a video game based on the incident where players get to be the twits.

I keep wondering why anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say, and no one ever provides a reason. Asserting narcissism with no evidence of narcissism = neediness.

Mike Leung, ladies and gentlemen. Dance, little troll.

Jesus Christ, is there no end to your hatred of short people? I hope your salary is worth the time you spend holding your nose in the presence of the children you've demonstrated you can't stand.

Dance!

PAD: "I would agree with you if you were right."

As a general rule of thumb, I tend to agree with people who are right. Those who are wrong just don't seem to get it.

The problem I have with the death penalty isn't so much for the X% of the people who are guilty of their crimes, but for those who are not. No system is perfect.

Mike has set the bar pretty low on the standards of reasoned discourse.

Your observation will mean something when you catch me sheltering 3, or 5, or however many hypocrisies I've caught you sheltering. Until then, the honor of establishing the low standard of discourse doesn't go to me.

Only in your own mind have you done anything of the kind.

You say that like I'm not going to immediately remember:

• my summary of your pattern of hypocrisy: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005186.html#315512
• your hypocrisy you conveniently provided for me to include in my summary of how my behavior demonstrates I live by rules: peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#352032
• today

Those posts ain't only in my mind. You are a very offensive person.

But your interpretation? Strictly in your own mind.

And either you know this, which makes you simply an jerk who infests other people's blogs because he got tired of nobody interacting on his own--a parasite, essentially--or you honestly don't get it, in which case you are too nutty to deal with.

I'm simply responding to accusations directed at me. If you don't like it, don't provide them.

Unless you demonstrate how holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, you haven't giving me a reason to believe that that isn't what it literally takes to qualify. It's a straightforward 1:1 relationship:

Holding others to a standard you refused to be held to : hypocrisy

n ≠ Rocket+Surgery

It's that you act like a jackass. Now, one could argue that acting like a jackass is a stupid thing to do--it would certainly tend to lower the quality of life for most people.

By the standards of debating as it's known in western civilization, if you don't demonstrate how your holding others to standards you refuse to be held to doesn't qualify as hypocrisy, my assessment of you stands.

As hypocrisy is a moral deficiency, and being a jack-ass is not, I don't know how it doesn't suck to be you, not having a soul and all.

[As if stupidity can't demonstrated in how one behaves] But it's yet another manifestation of your narcissism that you define stupidity as How Mike Is Treated. Only in a world where you matter, Mike. [See?] Not this one.

I keep wondering why anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say, and no one ever provides a reason. Asserting narcissism with no evidence of narcissism = neediness.

Mike Leung, ladies and gentlemen. Dance, little troll.

Jesus Christ, is there no end to your hatred of short people? I hope your salary is worth the time you spend holding your nose in the presence of the children you've demonstrated you can't stand.

• [peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005544.html#339447]
• [peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005683.html#351989]

Dance!

Thank you for simply dropping the pretense of reason you use to shelter your hypocrisy, and not disagreeing with me. It's a wonder what all your craptacular denials have been about all this time. It's much easier all around without you trying to take credit for virtues you feel free to abandon when they don't give you what you want.

I know, I know...there's always that chance he'll smack his head and say "Cripes! I've been a putz!" and use his intellect for something more productive.

Have you ever been to a Mensa meeting? I'd like to hear what demonstrates the independence of intellect and productivity from each other more than a Mensa meeting.

With what Jung portrayed as the four personality functions, a consciousness led by the intellect seems the most divorced from a sense of urgency. Productivity seems to be a priority for intuition. There's no 1:1 relationship between indulging in hypocrisy and accessing someone else's intuition.

I disagree with you.

Now, keep dancing!

1. My daughter was telling me about a discussion that she had at lunch, she mentioned how excited she was about seeing the Golden Compass. A girl at her table exclaimed “You CAN’T go see that it was written by an Atheist!” My very outspoken daughter replied “that is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard! The Authors belief system does not negate the fact that he wrote an amazing story. I can’t believe that you have such an unchristian attitude!” I am so proud of her.
It seems that more and more “Christians” have forgotten that little phrase in the bible
.
JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED
Judges must be very busy in heaven.

Diana

Thank you for simply dropping the pretense of reason you use to shelter your hypocrisy, and not disagreeing with me. It's a wonder what all your craptacular denials have been about all this time. It's much easier all around without you trying to take credit for virtues you feel free to abandon when they don't give you what you want.

I disagree with you.

Now, keep dancing!

Well, since you've invited me to navel-gaze:

While I've been citing my pattern of living by principles as a rebuttal to the notion I am insincere, I think it might still be fair to portray our interaction as a form of game. You could easily take control of my participation here by acknowledging the hypocrisy by you I cite but you can't deny, simply by waiving your privilege of holding others to principles you don't hold yourself to, the means by which you take credit for virtues you don't uphold.

You see, there was a speech by (iirc) the computer admin of the Manhattan Project when he retired from AT&T in the mid-1980s. The gist of his speech was that the engineers he was talking to should ask themselves what the most important solutions remaining unsolved in their disciplines were and, if they weren't working on them, why. If you want to apply what he said here, we should all speak as if our participation in this forum is the most important thing going on here.

From my experience, the only virtue of hypocrisy is to shelter predatory behavior. It's only use is in securing under false pretenses a consensus for what is really a hidden agenda. It seems to be the moral deficiency common to all things that can be said to be morally deficient. Therefore, under the principle of an ounce of prevention equaling a pound of cure, my challenging your hypocrisy is the most important thing that goes on in this forum.

And it doesn't even seem like the privilege of hypocrisy provides all that much gratification to those who practice it, so it's a practice of trading away a dollar of problem-solving for 5¢ of privilege.

And because you have this control over our interaction, I have no guilt over the offense anyone takes from my posts, because hypocrisy is no one's right. And because I can count on your vanity from preventing you from exercising this control, I can count on you being available for my studies on the single most important obstacle to problem-solving anyone can speak of. And if I'm wrong, and you see the light and take control of our interaction, it will demonstrate a level of competence on my part you've portrayed me as incapable of demonstrating -- so I'm free to speak with all sincerity and not deny myself anything.

Sorry, your inability to make sense keeps me from taking the time it would require to actually decipher your nonsense.

What can be discerned is more of the oh so needy narcissism that has become so predictable that you've become not just a troll--you're a wind up troll.

Think about it.

the notion I am insincere

Actually, most people think you are, as you were described by someone on another internet group you leeched onto, "Nutty Mike Leung". I think you are sincere, in your own way. That's...unfortunate. You could easily stop lying. Fixing crazy takes effort.

You could easily take control of my participation here by acknowledging the hypocrisy by you I cite but you can't deny,

Oh, so I can win by agreeing with you? Wow, all that time wasted reading Jung and you're trying to use playground psychology. Holy smokes.

If you want to apply what he said here, we should all speak as if our participation in this forum is the most important thing going on here.

Sorry. You are not that interesting to me.

Therefore, under the principle of an ounce of prevention equaling a pound of cure, my challenging your hypocrisy is the most important thing that goes on in this forum.

But apparently the opposite isn't the case. Well, it's kind of flattering to be the focus of someone's interest. Creepy, too.

But of course it's much more than that for you. You need the attention. Otherwise, you could just email me and not inflict yourself on the board. kaiju@aol.com. I'll even read them before hitting the delete button, promise.

I have no guilt over the offense anyone takes from my posts

No doubt. That would require a degree of empathy you've never demonstrated. It a thing normal people have, so pay it no mind.

I can count on you being available for my studies on the single most important obstacle to problem-solving anyone can speak of.

Let me know how the research is going, Boswell. I hope that once your work is published I will be able to have the strength of character to congratulate you on solving one of the great problems of our time.

And if I'm wrong, and you see the light and take control of our interaction, it will demonstrate a level of competence on my part you've portrayed me as incapable of demonstrating

So you win either way! Yay you! It's FUN to be a kook!

Don't ever change, Mike. And keep dancing!

It must be a sign of the Apocalypse - Every single thing PAD has said in this string seems exactly correct. We should be punishing not thoughts, but deeds. Until there is an action or a movement toward taking the action, it's nothing but harmless thoughts.

As for Mike, give him a break - There's something seriously wrong with his mind. It's not nice to make fun of the schizophrenics talking to the chipmunks.

Sorry, your inability to make sense keeps me from taking the time it would require to actually decipher your nonsense.

If you devote any of your time attempting to decipher nonsense, how is that in any way anyone else's fault?

Actually, most people think you are, as you were described by someone on another internet group you leeched onto, "Nutty Mike Leung".

That's an internet group I've never posted to and never would have heard of if you hadn't referred to it. You are Wrong.™

But since you reserve the privilege of holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to, why should you care? Answering that is my challenge here.

You could easily take control of my participation here by acknowledging the hypocrisy by you I cite but you can't deny...

Oh, so I can win by agreeing with you? Wow, all that time wasted reading Jung and you're trying to use playground psychology. Holy smokes.

It's literally the truth, and if you're taken hostage by playground psychology, I don't see how that doesn't mean it sucks to be you.

I hope your salary is worth the time you spend holding your nose in the presence of the children you continue to demonstrate you can't stand.

[With no sense of irony] Sorry. You are not that interesting to me.

Uh, yeah, then it's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say.

Therefore, under the principle of an ounce of prevention equaling a pound of cure, my challenging your hypocrisy is the most important thing that goes on in this forum.

But apparently the opposite isn't the case. Well, it's kind of flattering to be the focus of someone's interest. Creepy, too.

You are free to Make It A First™ and cite an instance of my holding someone to a standard I don't hold myself to.

But of course it's much more than that for you. You need the attention. Otherwise, you could just email me and not inflict yourself on the board. kaiju@aol.com. I'll even read them before hitting the delete button, promise.

I am addressing accusations against me in the forum they've been made.

I have no guilt over the offense anyone takes from my posts...

No doubt. That would require a degree of empathy you've never demonstrated.

If you review your Dante, he will remind you that the gateway to the purgatory that leads to paradise isn't Empathy™ but Morality.™

Sociopaths are not deficient in Empathy.™ They simply don't let it get in the way of their morally-deficient Hypocrisy.™

It a thing normal people have, so pay it no mind.

I agree. Jackie Robinson, as well asthe rest of the best of us, are not normal, and I have no resolve to distance myself from him by devoting myself to conforming to the majority.

I can count on you being available for my studies on the single most important obstacle to problem-solving anyone can speak of.

Let me know how the research is going, Boswell.

You and everyone else is observing it as I am. Like I said, I free to speak with all sincerity on this.

I hope that once your work is published I will be able to have the strength of character to congratulate you on solving one of the great problems of our time.

Well, if there's an afterlife, I will be able to look whoever does publish this work in the eye, like I prepare to look the samurai and the vikings and the other wild things in the eye. I agree we should all do in this life what it takes for you to do that also...

It's FUN to be a kook!

...regardless of how widely the challenge varies from person to person.

And I'm fortunate in that if I'm wrong, if at the gate to the afterlife they ask me how I allowed this to happen, I can say I was completely honest, and all I got was coercion and disgust and was provided no reason to change my mind.

That, ironically, is how the internet, the principle of free speech, and Peter David, have been good to me.

We should be punishing not thoughts, but deeds.

Hate crime standards are no more thought-intolerance than conspiracy to murder. It's Hypocritical™ to challenge one and not the other. With conspiracy, you don't even need a victim, just an intended victim.

Mike Leung, ladies and gentlemen.

If you wonder how long he's been doing this check out this thread, sent to me by someone who must be following up on old acquaintances (and thanks but I'd really rather be sent links to funny videos involving cats, all things being equal)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002N1U

7 years old and nothing much has changed...although I think the quality of your writing was better back then. Your descent into narcissism has made you less interesting. Think about it.

7 years old and nothing much has changed...although I think the quality of your writing was better back then.

Then it's a wonder you can't attack me on the merits of what I prolifically say here.

Think about it.

Bill, I have to say yes, in our interactions, your modest offenses out-distance the sum-total of all other offenses I've received in my life. I have to admit I feel some embarrassment at my naiveté.

But you're also demonstrating how much potential control over my environment, by citing how I've had all along what I've made work here. I simply feel an obligation to access this potential, and address the hypocrisy that seems to be common to all things that can be said to be morally deficient.

You WANT to be attacked...how deep do these problems go? It's a wonder...

But the offer is still open- just send me emails at kaiju@aol.com, if you truly want one on one material for your, um, studies. I promise a reply to each one (hoo boy). They may only be one or two words, depending on the quality of the initial letter, but reply I will.

Of course, this will deny you the audience I think you need, all claims to the contrary. As the link above shows, this is what you do. This is who you are. That folks from back then still chuckle at your name seems pathetic to most of us but it gives you the gratification you need. That you would think that puts you up there with Jackie Robinson...well.

So go ahead, reply to this, get that last word you need...and I'll ignore it. You can continue the conversation at my email address. These topics are two interesting to see them partially derailed by your issues and your arguments have become so repetitive that I can't imagine it will take too much time on my part to dismiss them. So...everyone wins!

Think about it.

Back to more interesting subjects--copycat killers

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/15/kopel-reducing-the-risk-of-copycat-killers/

Reducing the risk of copycat killers
How papers can avoid glorifying perpetrators
By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News

Worth a look (and he gives a nice plug for cryptozoologist Loren Coleman's book The Copycat Effect )

Even if one grants the arguments that publication of a publicity-minded killer's name and picture serve a public interest that trumps the risk of encouraging copycats, there are some standards that every responsible media outlet could adopt, to at least reduce the risk:

1. If a killer was seeking infamy, neither his picture nor his words should ever appear on the front page. The front page, because it seen at newsstands, convenience stores, and other locations, even by people who don't read the newspaper, has a publicity value that far exceeds any other part of the newspaper.

2. Temple argues that photos help readers understand that people who do terrible things are often very ordinary-looking. If so, a single photo on a single day is sufficient.

3. Never run a photo or video which the killer has chosen for his own publicity. Similarly, never run a photo of the killer "in action" - as in a surveillance tape. Such photos are enticing to sociopaths.

4. Do publish a photo showing the disgusting post-mortem condition of the killer, with half his face blown off after he has killed himself or been shot by a good citizen. The photo should appear, not in the printed paper, but on the newspaper's Web site and behind a warning page. Such photos would deglamourize the perpetrators.

5. Although there is some news value in reporting the killer's name initially, there is no need to use the name incessantly. Talk shows, TV programs, and follow-up news articles should follow the good example of Caplis and Silverman. Refer to the killer instead as "the coward," or some other term.

Dance, little troll....

It's FUN to be a kook!...

If you wonder how long he's been doing this check out this thread, sent to me by someone who must be following up on old acquaintances...

...it's a wonder you can't attack me on the merits of what I prolifically say here.

You WANT to be attacked...?

I'd like to congratulate Bill for winning this year's "Most Ridiculous Attempt To Blame The Offended" Award.

Of course, this will deny you the audience I think you need, all claims to the contrary.

You don't have to publicly post your attacks against me. There is no such law.

That you would think that puts you up there with Jackie Robinson...well.

Other than your devotion to conformity, I have as much in common with Jackie Robinson as you.

So go ahead, reply to this, get that last word you need...and I'll ignore it.

And if the burn-out of your hypocrisy can be systematized, someone could start a version of the Dog Whisperer for hypocrites called the Hypocrite Whisperer -- and all for the good of humanity, too.

First off, Mike bugs the hell out of me, and I have just about no sympathy for him under any circumstances. Nonetheless, giving out what is supposedly his real name (when he has not given it here) and linking to a site where he has seemingly submitted his personal Email address seems out of bounds (and certainly sufficient ammunition for him to complain at length for a considerable time). In this case, I hope Mike is correct that Bill Mulligan has him mistaken for someone else - but Bill's intent, of exposing Mike as he has not chosen to be exposed, is very much against the terms of service here.

Back to Mike, though....Why does he persist in appending the (TM) to nontrademarked words? As a guideline to all, those words meriting (TM) are just this: "words which have been assigned trade marks." When he is mulling which words would benefit from the (TM), it would be best to just ask "Is there a trade mark here? It would just look ignorant to be wrong about that, goodness knows! I sure don't want to look like an undereducated goon, you know - just because I think (TM) is a really keen graphic."

Jeffrey--Mike's name has been open knowledge for some time. He still has it up at his old webblog, though he apparently lost interest in speaking to nobody back almost 2 years ago and decided to latch onto this blog instead.

And the Mike Leung referred to in that post is very much our Mike Leung. Accept no substitutes. He's been doing this for a while. But don't take my word for it--straight from the horse's ass: I've been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I'm a troll at all. (In fact, he said that in a post directed right at you).

At any rate, you can't expect to go incognito when you've spent years on the web being, um...cognito. The quote above had a link to Mike's site, complete with email and even a photo. So I don't see how I have chosen to expose anything Mike himself hasn't exposed.

As long as he links to it, I have no reservation against Bill citing what I've posted to any public forum.

Anyway, the addresses are obsolete and, with all the hypocrisy that gets sheltered here, I do wonder if posting names of particular ethnic varieties is more incendiary than it needs to be to those who submit their need to portray me as deficient as their proof I am. If anyone feels any anxiety from the absence of a unique identifier to hold my posts to, I have no reservation against linking them to "http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com". That way, the other Mikes will feel free to abstain from all other identifiers without feeling the need for further identification to disassociate from my posts.

Why does he persist in appending the (TM) to nontrademarked words?

Trade competition involves creating the association of services to the identifiers the trademark protects. If my post demonstrates a Notion™ of some kind embodied in someone's behavior, why should I refuse to emphasize that portrayal with a ™?

[In the order of my reading]

As long as he links to it, I have no reservation against Bill citing what I've posted to any public forum.

And the Mike Leung referred to in that post is very much our Mike Leung. Accept no substitutes. He's been doing this for a while. But don't take my word for it--straight from the horse's ass: I've been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I'm a troll at all. (In fact, he said that in a post directed right at you).

As we can see, the Need™ to withhold access to the source of the post is always preferable to those who depend on false pretenses to build a consensus for what is really a hidden agenda.

Having read many times over the past 5 years many threads involving a person whose name sounds like Sick Old Knee, it is easy to see where this will all end.

Bounced checks?

Setting the religious issues, home environments and the race issues aside... let's put the responsibility where it belongs - on choices. The bully chose to hurt someone, fully aware of what he was doing and knowing it was not acceptable. The man who stepped in also made a choice in his reaction, as did the group of boys who were attacked. Choices are completely our own, and often what we think is a good one for us, others think is a poor one for them. In some cases, like this one, it's easy for me to see who made the wrong one... becuase IMHO, a choice that physically hurts another person is always the wrong one. This is strictly MY choice for the way I live - others must make their own.

Bill Mulligan - Perhaps so. If he has been that open, you are probably right.

Mike - Here in the real world, the things attached to (TM) are trade marked (hence "TM"). In your world, it has some sort of postmodern ironic meaning which is known only to you. On Earth, most of us use our words to convey meaning, rather than as linguistic masturbation.

I answered your question.

If you don't enjoy communicating, why would anyone emulate you?

Along the lines of overreactions, a 10 year old was arrested and charged with a felony for bringing a steak knife to school for the sole purpose of eating her leftover steak for lunch...

http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30807&cat=0\

Poor girl how has a police record...

Oops.. Typo in above link. Sorry

http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30807&cat=0

I understand why schools have had to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy with respect to violence. Time was, a fight at worst resulted in some bruises and maybe a bloody nose. Today a violent confrontation between schoolchildren carries a risk of turning lethal. For that reason, I could understand why a school would choose to prohibit students from bringing steak knives to school.

But the incident in Ocala should have ended with a lunch monitor confiscating the knife and explaining why. The girl should not have been arrested and sure as hell should not be facing felony charges. Now we've got a 10-year-old who is probably scared out of her wits, confused, and being exposed to some truly violent kids in juvenile detention (my girlfriend used to work for a juvenile detention facility, so I know what I'm talking about). All because she wanted to have leftover steak for lunch.

The intent of the school's policy may be to protect students, but overzealous and rigid policies like this do harm rather than good. As has already been discussed, Hell is paved with good intentions.

(The road to Hell may be similarly paved as well. ;) )

Re: the girl and the steak knife to cut her steak: Unless there's more to the story than that brief blurb told us, that's just nuts. According to the piece, she wasn't using it in a threatening manner; and what's more, a steak knife is a utensil, not a weapon. Yes, it can be _used_ as a weapon; but so could lots of things. You could probably do a lot of damage if you hit someone in the head with a fully loaded book bag .

On another note, and possibly of interest to Bill Mulligan, Jerry Chandler and other aficianodas of zombies (since that particular group of undead have already been mentioned in this thread), the summer 2007 edition of SCYWEB BEM audiozine (found at SCYWEB BEM.com) features a story called "Manhattan Monsters" by Hank Quense, which concerns zombies.

But not your ordinary brain-eating zombies. These are your hard-working, law-abiding, organized sports-playing, harrassed by the Attorney General as "security risks" for being different zombies (though the Z word is never actually used; they're referred to as undead.)

That same edition of SCYWEB BEM also contains a story by yours truly.

Rick

So...

Don't eat steak in school.

Don't write zombie stories in school.

Don't do creative writing projects in school.

Don't leave your 12 inch G.I. Joe's gun in you pocket when you go to school.

Don't give a friend with a headache or cramps an asprin in school.

Don't sing funny songs about running over the teacher with a train.

Don't be hyper or curious (ADHA).

Don't think (SOLs).

Yeah, home schooling just keeps looking better and better every second.

As someone who has actually seen people with both forks and pens rammed into their head...

Are forks allowed at the school? How about pens and pencils?

And, hey, don't let those kids sneak belts into school. Sure, they may say that they're just using them to hold up their pants, but we all know that you really use those things as ninja weapons to choke out an enemy.

How could the schools let that slip by?

"I understand why schools have had to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy with respect to violence."

I can undestand that, too. But unless the school is vegie/vegan, using a tool to cut her lunch does not classify exactly as violence. As others have mentioned, there are many things just as deadly sitting in bookbags all over the country at this very moment. I don't think our schools have enough detention slips to hand out.

Zero Tolerance to me says "we're too stupid to apply common sense and reason in our discipline." Why bother having to think about a situation when you can just consult a list, cross-reference it with a punishment, and hand out a form-letter? This steak-knife situation is a perfect example of a missed teaching experience. Rather than call the police...can you imagine the 911 call? "Please, you've got to come quick, there's a 10 year old girl here with a (gasp) steak knife, and she's..she's...o my god, she's CUTTING her LUNCH with it!"...the staff could have confiscated it if that's the policy, and then used it as an awareness event to remind everyone that knives of any kind are prohibited from school grounds, followed up by a letter to each parent.

Instead, there's a 10 year old girl that's going to have to face the potential stigma of having a felony charge against her for nothing more than the fact that she's smart enough to want to use tools to eat her lunch.

"Yeah, home schooling just keeps looking better and better every second."

We've long passed that point. We're just getting into potty training and manners, and let me tell you, I look forward to continuing to be the primary educator (along with my wife) for our kids. I don't know why any parent would want to allow anyone else to be there when their kid does something new for the first time. That look of wonder and huge smile will never get old for me.

Jerry, did you mean "ADHD" rather than "ADHA?"

As an aside, I have ADD... or ADHD. I don't know when they added the "H." I wasn't paying attention.

(Tim Lynch claims ADD and ADHD are separate diagnoses but I've seen conflicting information. I'd try to sort it out, but... ooohhh, shiny...)

I realize no one here has claimed that ADD isn't real, but as someone who suffers from it I get angry when people make the illogical leap from statistics indicating the possibility that doctors have overbroadened the diagnostic criteria for ADD to "the disorder isn't real." Trust me: it's real for some of us, and without medication it can be pretty damned hard for us to function. It's not an either-or situation.

Jerry wrote: Don't write zombie stories in school.

I guess I should be glad that no one forced me into counseling (or an exorcism) when I wrote a short horror story about Satan's son for the high school literary magazine. Granted, that was many moons ago. Maybe they were too distracted by trying to ban Cyndi Lauper's "She Bop" song... LOL

Bobb wrote: But unless the school is vegie/vegan, using a tool to cut her lunch does not classify exactly as violence.

I'm presuming they think it would be safer for her to use a flimsy plastic knife. Though how the possibility of a plastic knife snapping and flying through the air would be better is beyond me.

Yeah, I meant ADHD and I'm not saying that there is no such thing. I just find that kids who are just being normal five year olds are getting tagged as ADHD or ADD and pumped full of meds these days. I don't have ADHD, but I see kids who acted a lot like I did between the ages of 5 and 10 getting slapped with the ADHD tag and then getting stopped from growing into everything that they could be.It sucks.

What were we talking about again?

Zombies.

mmmmmmmmmm, zombies.

Bill, one of the brightest guys teaching at my school is diagnosed ADD or ADHD, one of those. I've seen a number of pretty bright kids who have not yet reached anywhere near their potential because they can't get the medication right. I wonder if it;s like dyslexia which, if I'm correct, also seems frequently linked to above average intelligence.

I also wonder if what we now consider "problems" were once pretty useful in at least some members of a human social order. When we lived in groups of 20 or so it was probably a good thing to have a few members of the tribe who were ADD, a few who were obsessive compulsive (especially when it came to grooming for lice), hell, even the schizophrenic was good for a laugh. It's not like we had Time Warner Cable.

Now we live in a world where the pressure is to have one size fits all. And it'll get worse--wait until we can genetically select our kids. Recipe for disaster, if you ask me.

Ahm the schizophrenic...

Recently read about scientists who removed some monkeys that appeared to be "other than normal" mentally. (I don't know exactly what they termed them, but I think it was schizophrenic or maybe just paranoid.) They thought they would see a vast improvement in the attitiudes of the monkeys.

They all died.

Not from emotional distress or disease, but because they had no members remaining with sleep irregularities or extreme awareness of the surroundings. The troop of monkeys all fell to predators.

Perhaps the schizophrenic actually served a purpose thousands of years ago.

Sounds to me that the schizophrenic still serves a purpose today. We've just evolved out of the need for them, but the genetic code is still there.

Perhaps the schizophrenic actually served a purpose thousands of years ago.

Whoa!

So, for every incident like this, there is always an opposite one because people are sinners. Even Jews sin. So, although you may enjoy slapping this article on your blog to push some sort of agenda that Christians hate Jews, I personally would like to defend the Christians who are practicing of their faith. These fellows were obviously NOT Christians by its definition so should not be applied. They were sinners who called themselves Christian and nothing more. IMO

Yeah, because a Jewish guy in a loving marriage top a Christian woman is obviously trying to push an anti-Christian agenda. Don't be such a knee jerk.

The public face of Christianity is the face most people see. The "good" ones need to be more active in disspelling the image of the "bad" Christians. It's up to you to prove they aren't the true face of Christianity.

Hurling accusations at people who just repost copies of the news and claiming they are anti-christian is VERY anti-Christian and hurts the cause of Christianity.

yeah, so shut up or we'll stone you!

"yeah, so shut up or we'll stone you!"

can't we smite him, instead?

One of the cognitive hazards for people around the world who still hold to a remnant tribal or clan identity (including Jews) is the tendency to see post-tribal people as likewise belonging to tribes. The English term "gentiles" and the Yiddish "goyim" - both of which mean "non-Jews" to Jews - are manifestations of this error.

Christianity is not genetic. It's a belief system and nothing more - unlike Judaism there is no ethnic or tribal identity specific to it. So unless these subway punks adhere to religious practice, i.e. attend church regularly, they're not Christians. By this definition I myself am not a Christian - I don't believe, I don't practice and I rarely attend religious services of any variety. My parents are Christians, my grandparents were Christian, but I am not.

It's simple bigotry for PAD to attempt to group Christians in with these imbeciles. And given where the vast, vast majority of violent anti-semitism is occurring and advocated today (socialist states and Muslim states), his analysis is amazingly obtuse. Given that the Christian majority in this country has shown greater tolerance toward Jews than just about any other group of people in the history of the world, I'd guess there's some psychological displacement process at work in PAD's mind. Perhaps this story seems significant to PAD because it helps him affirm his pathological biases.

I apologize for not commenting earlier and thus causing some of the paranoiacs around here to speculate that I was using another name. This is my first post on this thread.

Oh yeah, and it's nice that the Muslim kid helped out. Doesn't quite make up for the whole 9/11 thing but every little bit helps.

It's simple bigotry for PAD to attempt to group Christians in with these imbeciles.

But then

it's nice that the Muslim kid helped out. Doesn't quite make up for the whole 9/11 thing but every little bit helps.

What's wrong with this picture?

These fellows were obviously NOT Christians by its definition so should not be applied.

By that claim, terrorists are not Muslims, even if they claim are such.

But, that doesn't stop Christians and many others from labeling Islam a religion of hate, anger, and terror because of the actions of a few that claim to be Islamic.

In the end, you can't have it both ways; you really don't have the right to say who is and isn't a Christian (or Muslim or any other faith).

So, there was a time delay on the kook commentary for this thread...?

Personally, as a Catholic this news sickens me. Peter, I know it's too late to wish you a happy Hannukah, but I hope you had one and enjoy the rest of this holiday season. Also, I hope Ariel never personally experiences what these Jewish kids went through on the subway...

Bladestar wrote: The "good" ones need to be more active in disspelling the image of the "bad" Christians.

Just one problem with that. The "good" ones don't get the publicity that these bozos got.

Given a choice about a congregation raising money to put a new roof on the local orphanage vs the subway story, which one do you think the news will go with?

It's just proof of the old saying, "one bad apple spoils the bunch."

BTW, the media was referring to these thugs as "christians" before this thread was even started.

Rich Lane wrote:
It's simple bigotry for PAD to attempt to group Christians in with these imbeciles.

But then

it's nice that the Muslim kid helped out. Doesn't quite make up for the whole 9/11 thing but every little bit helps.

What's wrong with this picture?

Apparently you haven't read the Quran.

PAD demonizes as Christians people who were clearly not behaving in a "Christian" fashion. Islam, like Christianity - is purely a belief system. Which means it's defined by its tenets. And Islam's tenets are ugly.

PAD's "muslim guy", aka Hassan Askari, was extending Muslim-specific ethics to non-Muslims, which is very much NOT an Islamic way of behaving, since the Quran and Islamic tradition (unlike the New Testament) specify a system of ethics for dealing with people based on their religion and social status. Perhaps you should show Islam the minimal respect it deserves by actually reading the Quran, rather than ignorantly equating it with Christianity.

As I said, I'm not a Christian but I have read the New Testament and the Quran. The New Testament is probably the most important and humane text written by man prior to the Enlightenment. The Quran, on the other hand, is the collected ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic sociopath. Only someone ignorant of both would equate the two.

Mohammed Atta's behavior was consistent with the Quran. Hassan Askari's behavior is consistent with contemporary western secular morality which was first expressed by Immanuel Kant, who worked to present a rational, secular justification for Christian morality.

Besides which I was joking, you moron.

You were joking but you also seem to think the joke is representative of the truth, so calling him a moron is questionable for several reasons.

I can't honestly say I've read the Koran cover to cover but among those who have there is no unanimity at all in the idea that it legitimizes the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. You can selectively quote passages that would make such actions blasphemous in the eyes of Islam. You could also probably selectively quote passages that would support you position. Similar cherry picking has been used on the Bible to justify all manner of positions.

As for whether or not Hassan Askari was behaving as a proper Muslim, I can only say that I have personally seen many examples of Muslim generosity toward outsiders--in some situations it is almost embarrassing how well you are treated. It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me how Muslims in general and Arabs in particular can be the most generous shirt off their back kind of folks one on one--but get a crowd of them going and the next thing you know it's all "Kill the one with the Teddy bear!" and shit. Of course, as Christine points out, that's what makes the news. A Muslim family taking in a Christian stranger in town and making sure he is treated as one of the family only better is not exactly stop the presses material.

Of course, your results may vary but it seems very simplistic to treat Mr. Askari as an aberration.

The Quran specifically calls on Muslims to wage war on non-believers. It is not at all vague or in any way unclear on the topic, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or ignorant. And yes I can certainly quote suras - and not that selectively - to validate my position.

There are over 100 passages in the Quran that specifically call for violence against non-believers. Go read it. A serious study (of the kind Muslims scholars engage in) requires years but the kind of cursory survey I've done will only take you a month or so. There are excellent translations available. It's quite explicit. You may be shocked.

Here's another little parable for PAD:

In the summer of 2001 a thirty-ish Jewish woman from New York named Lizzie Grubman ran over a bunch of "Christians" after uttering an anti-gentile epithet.

She yelled "white trash! white trash!" and then backed over a bunch of non-Jewish people on Long Island with a large SUV.

I know people in New York - Jewish and otherwise - who think "white trash" is an edgy, amusing slur alternative to "redneck". Specifically, to them it means "rural, low-income white Christians".

When Lizzie Grubman maimed a handful of non-Jews after uttering an anti-Christian epithet, I didn't chalk it up to her Jewishness. I wasn't concerned with her tribe or her religion. I don't recall reading anything that put forward the conclusion that her Jewishness was the root cause. (Because that would have been idiotic.)

To paraphrase Dr. Freud: sometimes an asshole is just an asshole. Grubman is a narrow-minded spoiled idiot whose worldview is of no particular importance and should not be used to draw conclusions about other people, with the possible exception of her negligent parents.

Likewise those punks on the subway.

Did somebody hear a gnat?

According to Lingster, "The New Testament is probably the most important and humane text written by man prior to the Enlightenment. The Quran, on the other hand, is the collected ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic sociopath." As a former Christian I can tell you that Lingster's characterization of the New Testament is based on a selective reading that ignores those passages which contract his personal biases.

For example, in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes Jews who fail to kill disobedient children. From Mark 7:9-11 (King James version): "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free."

Furthermore, Jesus is portrayed as a racist in Mark's Gospel. From Mark 7:25-28 (King James version): "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs."

That doesn't sound very humane to me.

Lingster is also mischaracterizing the Koran, which exhorts the followers of Allah to fight those who oppress them, but not to make war against those who do not make war against them. From Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."

Moreover, the Koran makes clear that those who deliberately kidnap and harm civilians in time of war will go to Hell.

In the pages of the various scriptures from the world's various faiths one can generally find words to justify the worst behavior coexisting with calls to act as kind, compassionate, and good human beings. To rake Islam over the coals for certain ugly passages of scripture while ignoring similar ugliness in the New Testament of the Bible is nothing but irrational and ugly bigotry.

To paraphrase Dr. Freud: sometimes an asshole is just an asshole. Lingster is a narrow-minded and spoiled idiot.

For example, in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus criticizes Jews who fail to kill disobedient children.

Actually, the point he's making is that the Pharasies (sp?) were substituting their own traditions for what had been Jewish Law.

Had Jesus actually advocated the execution of disobedient children I think it might have come up in the story of the prodigal son, which seems in fact to have the exact opposite message.

Bill, in that passage Jesus is saying that "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" is in fact God's law. And he is criticizing the Pharisees for substituting their law for God's law. By logical extension, then, Jesus in this passage is saying that disobedient children should be killed. At least according to the King James translation, anyway.

I'm not trying to wholly condemn Christianity, however, but merely to point out that it is unreasonable to dwell on specific passages of the Koran that advocate divisiveness and violence while ignoring passages in the Bible that do the same. I could just as easily quote passages in both the Koran and the Bible that advocate kindness and compassion.

Religion is a tool, like a hammer. Both can be used to create wonderful things, and both can be used for destructive ends.

For those criticizing PAD for using the "Christian" label on the attackers:

FYI practically every media story on this event used the "Christian" "Jew" and "Muslim" labels for the participants. (If I must, I can ferret out the links.)

Point being, if you are going to criticize PAD, then you should also rant against the media. Otherwise, it is evident that you are using this unfortunate event to promote your own agendas against PAD... which is remarkably similar to what you are accusing him of doing.

Apparently you haven't read the Quran.

No, I haven't, but then again, I don't give a rat's hairy ass about the Quran or the Bible or the Talmud or the Manual of Festivus. It still boils down to you complaining about holding an entire group accountable for the actions of individuals and then turning around and judging an individual for the the actions of others who have a connection to a specific group.

Rationalize it all you want--it's hypocrisy.

PAD demonizes as Christians people who were clearly not behaving in a "Christian" fashion.

No. I really didn't. I reported the facts in a straightforward manner. The only reason I made specific mention of their being Christian was because they were quoted as howling that Jews had killed "their savior" on Chanukah. Everything else you're reading into it is coming from, I suspect, your own agenda.

In the summer of 2001 a thirty-ish Jewish woman from New York named Lizzie Grubman ran over a bunch of "Christians" after uttering an anti-gentile epithet. She yelled "white trash! white trash!" and then backed over a bunch of non-Jewish people on Long Island with a large SUV.
I know people in New York - Jewish and otherwise - who think "white trash" is an edgy, amusing slur alternative to "redneck". Specifically, to them it means "rural, low-income white Christians".

I have never, in my life, encountered anyone who automatically associated the term "white trash" with Christianity. It is, and always has been, a socio-economic slur, a nastier version of "red neck." Either you know really screwed up people (which wouldn't surprise me) or you're just fabricating for sake of argument (which also wouldn't surprise me.)

When Lizzie Grubman maimed a handful of non-Jews after uttering an anti-Christian epithet, I didn't chalk it up to her Jewishness.

That's very generous of you, except, as noted, it wasn't a case of a Jew uttering an anti-Christian epithet. It was a rich girl shouting at those whom she considered her econimic inferiors.

I wasn't concerned with her tribe or her religion. I don't recall reading anything that put forward the conclusion that her Jewishness was the root cause. (Because that would have been idiotic.)

Yes, and the reason it would have been idiotic is because "white trash" is only an anti-Christian slur in your mind. I can assure you that if she had said, "F- you, Jesus freaks," it would have been portrayed as a hate crime.

To paraphrase Dr. Freud: sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.

I bow to your superior wisdom and personal experience in that department.

PAD

I have never, in my life, encountered anyone who automatically associated the term "white trash" with Christianity. It is, and always has been, a socio-economic slur, a nastier version of "red neck." Either you know really screwed up people (which wouldn't surprise me) or you're just fabricating for sake of argument (which also wouldn't surprise me.)

It is not, actually, a nastier version of "redneck", at least when used by the rural populations that originated both terms. And the fact that you think so makes my point for me.

"Redneck" is simply slang for "rural person" or "farmer" and has only a very weak implicit negative connotation absent context - synonyms might include "good ol' boy", "country boy/girl". "White trash" on the other hand is an indictment of character - it refers to a person of very poor and ignorant character, a layabout or shiftless person.

My experience with the term in Manhattan comes from when I was described as "white trash" by a Jewish co-worker (and friend) from Queens over lunch. I went ashen and said, "I can't believe you just called me 'white trash'", because it's a pretty grave insult. I got over it and a bunch of us, Jew and gentile, had a conversation about the term. The outcome was - as your ignorance of the term would indicate - that the Jews in the group thought of it as a funny and naughty way of saying "redneck". I informed them that it was about as funny as "kike", which is to say not funny at all.

Both terms - redneck and white trash - are used specifically to refer to rural white gentiles (Christians). If you google the term "Jewish redneck", you will find a bunch of humor pages, because of the obviously funny contradiction implicit in that term.

So when Lizzie Grubman shouted at those people (before running them over) she was using an epithet that specifically described them as gentiles. It's just as explicit as those thugs on the subway.

And of course it would have been bigoted to indict Jewishness as the culprit behind the behavior of someone who was just an idiot. (Although I briefly met her once and she seems nice in person.)

Lingster,

As a born Southerner who has lived around rednecks and white trash for large portions of his life...

You're so full of $&!^ that I'd be amazed to see that your eyes weren't brown. Your explaination of what those terms "really mean" (but only on Planet Lingster) had to be one of the dumbest things that I've read here in a looooong, looooonnnggggggg time.

Thanks for the laugh.

redneck has never been used to describe a religious affiliation in my neck of the southern woods. In fact, your stereotypical redneck is probably less likely to be a churchgoer than other Southerners.

(Wikipedia supports this- "Generally, there is a continuum from the stereotypical redneck (a derisive term) to the country person; yet there are differences. Rednecks typically are more libertine, especially in their personal lives, than other country brethren who tend towards social conservatism. In contrast to country people, stereotypical rednecks tend not to attend church, or do so infrequently. They also tend to use alcohol and gamble more than their church-going neighbors.")

Similarly, White Trash has zero religious connotations. A white guy living in a tarpaper shack in the bayou might get nailed with the epithet whether he was a pious churchgoer, committed atheist or whatever. Can you cite any sources that say otherwise?

(BTW--how would Ms Grubman know what the religion of her victims was? They were going to a nightclub in the Hamptons. Jews don't live in the Hamptons? Go to nightclubs?)

Doesn't make much sense does it? Perhaps there is an explanation--you got your facts wrong. She did not refer to the people she was running over as "White trash"--it's what she called the cop who told her to get her car out of the fire lane. As someone who was used to doing as she pleased and parking where she wanted, she took offense and called the cop a name clearly meant to display her economic advantage over him. Religion had zero to do with it, I suspect, barring any evidence you can bring to the contrary.

It is not, actually, a nastier version of "redneck", at least when used by the rural populations that originated both terms. And the fact that you think so makes my point for me.

What point? You were claiming that Christians were synonymous with "white trash," and now you're claiming...well, God knows what, really.

Tell you what: Go find me a legitimate source that associates Christianity and the term "white trash." Somewhere other than out of your own head. If you can find that, then maybe, MAYBE, you might have my interest. Until then, you've lost it.

PAD

Labels are nasty things. Redneck, white trash, or any other thing that you can think of. Now, I've used both terms in the heat of anger. The people I was talking about are truly not nice people, far worse than anybody around here, and I hope far worse than anyone that any of you have to deal with. However, as labels aren't usually factual representations of who a person is, there's generally a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. Therefore, I could, in fact call several non-Christian people by either of those labels.

" had to be one of the dumbest things that I've read here in a looooong, looooonnnggggggg time."
Which, in itself, is quite a feat with some of the people PAD's had posting around here on occasion.

Bill Mulligan:
...redneck has never been used to describe a religious affiliation in my neck of the southern woods. In fact, your stereotypical redneck is probably less likely to be a churchgoer than other Southerners.

I've already pointed out that Jews who have adopted both terms use them as descriptors exclusively for gentiles, the Christian part is incidental. Not being Christian themselves, most Jews are no more aware of the various Christian sects and rites than are most Christians able to explain the distinction between Kohens and Levis (not the bluejeans).

...you got your facts wrong. She did not refer to the people she was running over as "White trash"--it's what she called the cop who told her to get her car out of the fire lane...

There was no cop present. Check YOUR facts - it was a bouncer. And it doesn't matter WHO she was directing it at - she ran over a bunch of people after screaming what she considered to be an ethnic epithet and flying into a drunken rage. I maintain that her behavior was just as much an indictment of Jews and Judaism as the behavior of these thugs on the subway was of Christians and Christianity - none at all and it's bigoted and narrow-minded to even suggest it.

Jerry Chandler:
...Your explaination of what those terms "really mean" (but only on Planet Lingster) had to be one of the dumbest things that I've read here in a looooong, looooonnnggggggg time.

Just saying it's wrong don't make it so, Jerry. Why don't you provide alternative definitions if you think they're wrong?

PAD:
Go find me a legitimate source that associates Christianity and the term "white trash.

I'm not claiming it means "Christian", Peter, I'm saying that for many Jews it indicates a subset of "gentile". Please remember that context has a lot to do with the meaning of a phrase. For example, there is a term in Yiddish, "goyisher kop", which you're probably familiar with. I think it literally means "the gentile head/mind". Colloquially it means "stupid gentile" with the implicit assertion that gentiles are stupid. So let's be frank and admit that Jews keep a few anti-gentile grenades in their rhetorical armory, OK?

My assertion is that some Jews use "white trash" for the same broad purpose as their grandparents did when saying "goyisher kop".

It is natural and normal for people who have a tribal or very tight, insular identity to look on outsiders as inferior in capability or moral worth. Obviously the U.S. has been very good at assimilating people and making them feel that they are a part of a single, very broad identity, but it doesn't succeed equally well in all people.

You went out of your way to repeatedly describe the bad guys as Christians because, I suspect, you believe Christians are bad people. That's the subtext I read into this article. You don't use the more specific term "Catholics" - which is how the attackers describe themselves in news articles I've seen - I presume because you don't care about or don't understand such distinctions.

I'm not claiming it means "Christian", Peter, I'm saying that for many Jews it indicates a subset of "gentile"

You are wrong. You are drowning in wrongness. Monumentally wrong.

You went out of your way to repeatedly describe the bad guys as Christians because, I suspect, you believe Christians are bad people.

Uh...huh. You realize I'm married to a Christian and my youngest daughter is Christian, right? No? Sense yourself sinking in ignorance over your head?

That's the subtext I read into this article. You don't use the more specific term "Catholics" - which is how the attackers describe themselves in news articles I've seen - I presume because you don't care about or don't understand such distinctions.

And now you're just talking out your ass. I didn't use any specific terms because the news article *I* read simply described them as Christians without distinguishing. To be specific, by the way, my wife and daughter are Catholic. Your assertion that I can't distinguish between Catholic and Protestant, Baptist and Methodist...it's steeped in the same gargantuan ignorance that has informed all your "opinions" on this subject.

What you need to do at this point is acknowledge your monumental stupidity in this matter and back away slowly.

PAD

As a born Southerner who has lived around rednecks and white trash for large portions of his life...

As a born Midwesterner who has also lived around rednecks and white trash for larger potions of my life... I have to agree with Jerry 100%.

But, I suppose one Manhattan Jew outweighs the views and opinions of two folks from other parts of the country, so Lingster, I guess you can continue to claim you're right.

And here's some definitions for you, courtesy of UrbanDictionary.com:

redneck

redneck
(1900 up, 387 down)
Mildly offensive term for a lower class white person from the southeastern states of the USA. Derives from someone who spent a lot of time on manual labour outside and so received a "red neck" from the sun."

See: Jeff Foxworthy. The man knows rednecks.

white trash

white trash
(1575 up, 171 down)
Slang term for white people that usually live in a trailer park. With low incomes that spend their tax returns on things like big screen TV's instead of clothes for their kids. These people tend to be mouthy and fight frequently. Generally these people are uneducated and have little concern for personal hygiene. To see these people at their best watch Jerry Springer.

YOU are the only person drawing a religious connotation from the word "redneck", so please stop trying to force your own mind-warping definitions to words on the rest of us.

"As I said, I'm not a Christian but I have read the New Testament and the Quran. The New Testament is probably the most important and humane text written by man prior to the Enlightenment. The Quran, on the other hand, is the collected ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic sociopath. Only someone ignorant of both would equate the two."

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that there is more violence done in Islam's name today than in Christianity's. I don't know whether this has anything to do with the content of their respective holy texts, though.

Anyway, what sometimes scares me about Christians isn't anything related to physical violence, but the view that many of them seem to hold that it's okay to cram Christian values down everyone's throats, perhaps due to the belief that everyone should be a Christian.

I suppose that means Islamists are Klingons, while Christians are the Borg.

Craig J. Reis:
And here's some definitions for you, courtesy of UrbanDictionary.com...

Oh, it's UrbanDictionary. Must be authoritative. Here's an excerpt from the "white trash" Wikipedia entry, which is at least a little bit more reliable:
A related stereotype is that of the redneck, although they differ considerably. A rural middle-class person may proudly characterize himself as a redneck (for example, the comedian Jeff Foxworthy uses his redneck persona as part of his act), but might be genuinely offended if called white trash, which is a more pejorative, geographically different term.

And backs up my point.

PAD:
You are wrong. You are drowning in wrongness. Monumentally wrong.

Then why is the term "Jewish redneck" so funny that dozens of people - presumably Jews - have set up humor pages on the web making sport of what they seem to think are generally exclusive concepts? Are they all wrong, too?

Regardless of who you married and how you're raising your daughter, the obvious anger in this post suggests you have an issue with Christians. (Perhaps it's merely because you associate churchgoers with political conservatism?) Your anger was similarly misdirected in your pole dancing post. In that one you mocked a MTA flack for using a common and entirely appropriate figure of speech. In this one you are unusually focused on the religious identities of people in an altercation, rather than on the individuals themselves.

And by the way - it turns out the ringleader of the hooligans is neither Catholic or Christian. His father is a lapsed Catholic and his deceased mother was Jewish. So if someone is monumentally wrong here, it's you. Because as I pointed out above, Christianity isn't genetic.

It's curious to me that you have so much anger. The first time I came to your blog was when you vented your rage at the comic con guys up in New England, against whom you ascribed sorts dark motives. Later on you accepted their re-invitation and admitted that they're not such bad guys. All the while in that altercation I was saying "give them the benefit of the doubt," which caused you to focus your rage on me.

You can use your blog to vent your rage to your little fan club here - that's your right. And if you don't want me to post comments here, then I'll leave. But I have a blog with a vastly larger readership than this one and I can post there all I like, about whatever I like. So you can have me inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in. Your choice.

” Just saying it's wrong don't make it so, Jerry.”

And Just your saying that you’re right doesn't make it so, Lingster. You’ve trotted out some Bizarro World definition of “redneck” and “white trash” that outside of the inhabitants of Planet Lingster has ever heard of and it’s required of everybody else to prove to you hat their understanding of the word is correct? Uhmmm… No. If I came in here one day and stated that some friends and I were talking about how the phrase “a dark cloud over his head” was actually a racist phrase meant to disparage blacks, it would be up to me to legitimately prove that statement. I wouldn’t be able to because, just like your assertion about “white trash” being some Jewish insult slang for Christians, it’s horse$&!^.

You made the charge and it’s on your shoulders to find a legitimate source or ten to back it or to support your definition of the term. If you can’t, then maybe you should consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, the concept is fifteen pounds of manure in a five pound bag.

” And it doesn't matter WHO she was directing it at - she ran over a bunch of people after screaming what she considered to be an ethnic epithet and flying into a drunken rage.”

Except it does matter who it was aimed at and by whom it was aimed. We had a spoiled little rich girl yelling at some poor working stiff. I’ve been around tons of spoiled little rich girls in my time. I spent four years living down in the Tampa Bay area and met quite a few. The Christian ones called any working stiff, my Christian raised self included, poor white trash when they didn’t get their way right then and there or just because all the time because they thought it was some huge insult rather then an indicator of their own ignorance. The fact that she thought that she was better then some lowly bouncer is far more likely to show her stuck up attitude and spoiled nature then it is any religious hatred. You’re really stretching the concept well past the breaking point to try and make it fit this notion of yours.

” You went out of your way to repeatedly describe the bad guys as Christians because, I suspect, you believe Christians are bad people.”

Uhmmm… Yeah… Sure. Despite years of writings in fiction and editorial pieces that say pretty much the opposite of that idea and Peter’s well documented (by him on this very site I might add) present family life, you’ve added 2+2 and gotten 12.

I was raised a Christian. So were most of the posters on this thread. How is it that none of us see the offense here other than the fact that there isn’t one. Yeah, my personal opinion is that the thugs’ religion was irrelevant when compared to their ignorance and that they would have found an excuse to hate and act like thugs even without the religious excuse. I even posted as much above. But even there, Peter addresses that as well to some degree.

Peter didn’t just describe the assailants as Christians, he described them as “poorly educated Christians” and underscored that fact by pointing out their belief that the Jewish people killed Jesus on Chanukah. Came off to me that he was pointing out more the ignorance of thugs and the irony, in this age of “all Muslims are bad” type of press, that a Muslim was the only witness to this attack who acted to defend the Jewish fellows. But you’ve got the Bizarro World take on things.

Lingster, you’re coming off, whether you mean to or not, as an idiot with an axe to grind. Seriously, you’re making up definitions for words that no one else subscribes to, you’ve declared attacks against Christianity where none exist and you’ve made accusations about Peter’s motives and personal life that simply do not stand up to reasonable scrutiny or documented facts. I mean at best you’re coming off as a Bizarro World version of Don Quixote attacking windmills while claiming them to be dragons that need slaying and at worst you’re simply coming off as a nut.

” Oh, it's UrbanDictionary. Must be authoritative. Here's an excerpt from the "white trash" Wikipedia entry, which is at least a little bit more reliable: A related stereotype is that of the redneck, although they differ considerably. A rural middle-class person may proudly characterize himself as a redneck (for example, the comedian Jeff Foxworthy uses his redneck persona as part of his act), but might be genuinely offended if called white trash, which is a more pejorative, geographically different term.
And backs up my point.”
1) Calling wikipedia reliable is somewhat shaky at best.
2) No, it doesn’t back your point at all. No one here is claiming that “white trash” isn’t insulting. Nor is there anyone here claiming that a self described redneck wouldn’t find the term insulting. However, everyone here is claiming that your idea of “white trash” being an insulting term for “gentiles” by Jews. Your point isn’t supported at all by that definition.

Thank you, play again.

That's...

However, everyone here is claiming that your idea of “white trash” being an insulting term for “gentiles” by Jews is full of it.

Jerry wrote: Lingster, you’re coming off, whether you mean to or not, as an idiot with an axe to grind.

I live on Long Island, so I saw this whole subway attack story on my local news stations and in our local papers; and I can tell you that the media referred to the attackers as "Christian." I distinctly recall them doing so, and thinking "Aw crap. Just what we (Christians of all flavors) need."

So unless you are about to rant against the media as well, this looks more and more like a personal attack on PAD.

"And by the way - it turns out the ringleader of the hooligans is neither Catholic or Christian."

Well, on Planet Lingster, it's an obvious sign that someone who sports a tattoo of Jesus on his arm and then displays that tattoo before attacking someone for being a part of the religion that murdered his savior just doesn't consider himself Christian in any way, shape or form. No, it's well known fact that members of the Ifa faith are far more likely to act in such a manner then anyone who believes themselves to be of a Christian based belief system.

Do you ever get to a point where you realize that you jumped into something without thinking it out, crammed both feet deep into your mouth and admit error or do you just keep clutching at straws and stretching points until you've painted a giant neon sign on your forehead that reads "IDIOT" for all to see? No? Kinda figured that.

You so funny. Done with you now.

"I distinctly recall them doing so, and thinking "Aw crap. Just what we (Christians of all flavors) need." "

Except, that's not even a thought that merits any real worry. As I (and others here including Peter have expressed in their own way as well) it's really not the religion as much as it is the person. Christianity didn't attack those kids. They were assaulted by dim witted thugs. Islam didn't attack us on 9/11. Homicidal (and suicidal) madman flew those planes into the towers. No one with more then a couple of IQ points is going to accuse a religion of the crime unless they have an agenda or an axe to grind.

Well, on Planet Lingster, it's an obvious sign that someone who sports a tattoo of Jesus on his arm and then displays that tattoo before attacking someone for being a part of the religion that murdered his savior just doesn't consider himself Christian in any way, shape or form.

The ringleader is a guy named Joseph Jirovec Jr. His father is a lapsed Catholic. His deceased mother was Jewish. He has not been reported to have any religious tattoo (that was another guy), but it has been reported that he was not raised religiously. In the past he has been charged with assault against some African-American guys. Google it.

As I suggested above, it looks like he's just an asshole.

I actually didn't want to raise the curtain on this earlier because, hilarious as it may be that PAD has been raging for naught, I was hoping to learn more about PAD's anger toward Christians via this thread.

PAD has not been forthcoming, so I suppose it's fair at this point to explain that he was wrong, drowning in wrongness, monumentally wrong, etc. From the beginning he fell hook, line and sinker for a line of bull put out by professional grievance groups.

Heh.

So, the fact that it wasn't the "leader" of the group of idiots who attacked Jews for killing Jesus on Chanukah and killing their savior who sported the Jesus tattoo backs your nutty "white trash" definition and "Peter hates Christians" claim... How?

"The ringleader is a guy named Joseph Jirovec Jr. His father is a lapsed Catholic. His deceased mother was Jewish. He has not been reported to have any religious tattoo (that was another guy), but it has been reported that he was not raised religiously. In the past he has been charged with assault against some African-American guys. Google it.
As I suggested above, it looks like he's just an asshole.

I actually didn't want to raise the curtain on this earlier because, hilarious as it may be that PAD has been raging for naught, I was hoping to learn more about PAD's anger toward Christians via this thread."

Raise the curtain on what? His name? Read that well before now. The fact that he's going to jail for assaulting a black man back in 2005? Read that in PAD's thread header. Read that his mom was Jewish? Tim Lynch posed that back at December 12, 2007 01:46 PM. PAD's "hatred" of Christians? Only in your own mind.

Seriously, you're a nut with an axe to grind. Just say so and get it over with. But your being a nut with an axe to grind really does limit the usefulness of talking to you. Bored now. Have fun.

Lingster, do you really not see that your arguments aren't making anyone agree with you about anything? PAD obviously has nothing against Christians, he's backed that up so many ways that it's getting kinda silly.

PAD showed a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he referred to them as Christians. You quoted Wikipedia defining white trash as exactly what PAD said it was with none of the Christian definition that you claimed, then you said that it backs up your point!

Do you really believe any of this, or are you just arguing to see how long people will continue responding to you?

Regardless of who you married and how you're raising your daughter, the obvious anger in this post suggests you have an issue with Christians.

I do not respond well to slurs. Particularly slurs related to my family.

But I have a blog with a vastly larger readership than this one and I can post there all I like, about whatever I like. So you can have me inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in. Your choice.

Nor do I respond well to threats. You are cordially invited to piss off.

You are now shrouded. What that means is that you are dead to me. A non-person. You do not exist save for the entertainment of others on the board, and if they ignored you as well, that would please me greatly.

PAD

PAD:
Nor do I respond well to threats.

Apparently you don't respond well to much except fawning adulation.

You are cordially invited to piss off.

I will not darken your comment thread again. Adios.

Lingster: "But I have a blog with a vastly larger readership than this one..."

No, you don't. Your blog has only a tiny fraction of the comments -- and commenters -- that there are here. There's no shame in that (my blog's audience is quite small), unless you're stupid enough to claim that you're more popular than you are. Which you did. Oops.

Lingster: "So you can have me inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in. Your choice."

Translation: You're getting attention here that you can't get elsewhere, and you crave that something fierce. You're clearly running out of gas, though, and like the petulant child you are you've decided to throw a tantrum.

Problem is, we can see through you. No amount of additional invective that you can (and probably will) hurl will change that.

Anyway, you may count me among those to whom you are now "dead," a non-entity, non-existent. Good day.

So this whole thing was some dopey kind of getback for his feelings being hurt over the comic-con incident? The guy's been waiting for some chance to jump ugly and THIS was the best he could come up with. Bizarre.

You know, Bill, he may actually have a pretty large readership. It's a site devoted to She-Hulk and has lots of nice pictures of her boobs, along with forum topics like JENNIFER WALTERS BOOB GROW and JUGGERNAUT SEX. You can get a lot of hits with stuff like that.

Very very few of this multitude of readers seem to have any need to leave comments, which is...well. There you are.

Buh bye, Lingster!

So this whole thing was some dopey kind of getback for his feelings being hurt over the comic-con incident? The guy's been waiting for some chance to jump ugly and THIS was the best he could come up with. Bizarre.

What's interesting is that his behavior on this thread was exactly the same as on the previous: He started off with making statements that were demonstrably untrue. When called on it, he shifted away from them, declaring them to be unimportant even though they were the underpinnings of his previous statements. He did not discuss what I wrote, but rather the inferences he drew from them, depending entirely on what he believed I was actually thinking rather than saying. He made broad comments about how I should exert caution lest the well of public opinion be poisoned against me while touting the alleged importance of his own web presence...because apparently my world will come to an end if conventions stop inviting me or Lingster writes negative reviews of "She-Hulk." His blog has a "vastly larger readership." Like I give a damn. Thousands of people slow down on the Long Island Expressway to look at an overturned truck or roadkill. Doesn't mean they get anything useful out of doing so.

PAD

Problem is, we can see through you. No amount of additional invective that you can (and probably will) hurl will change that.

Guaranteed he's now going to surface on other boards and declare, "Peter David disliked what I had to say and told me to 'piss off.'" Without, of course, bothering to mention that I was playing off his threat about pissing in or outside of the tent (certainly a no-win scenario since, in either case, the tent winds up smelling like piss.) And others will then bounce their heads like bobble dolls and say, "Yeah, I always heard he was mean."

That's just how it works. You can make yourself crazy if you let it get to you.

PAD

"Yeah, I always heard he was mean."

yeah, YEAH! You are the guy who demands 3 hotel rooms filled with pork rinds at any convention he attends!

;-)

On a more serious note (don't looked so shocked, I DO occasionally have serious thoughts...)

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that there is more violence done in Islam's name today than in Christianity's. I don't know whether this has anything to do with the content of their respective holy texts, though.

Rene... I would STRONGLY dispute this. Regardless of the ACTUAL motivations for the war versus terror, I'd say us Christians (and yes, I know not everyone in the Military is Christian, but it'd be hard to argue against the fact that a vast majority of them are) are doing a fine job of killing Muslims (again I know not everyone killed have been Muslims, so cut me some slack) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

vs.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

I will not darken your comment thread again.

Hey... It does seem a good deal brighter in here now.

Jerry wrote: Except, that's not even a thought that merits any real worry. As I (and others here including Peter have expressed in their own way as well) it's really not the religion as much as it is the person. Christianity didn't attack those kids.

I agree that for most sane folks don't see the thugs as true representatives of Christianity. My main concern is those nitwits who aren't very bright.

There has been some local concerns with destruction/desecration of religious symbols - not to mention an already hot debate about lawn ornaments in a nearby condominium complex. My "Oh crap" reaction was more like a "lets not give these folks more inspiration or excuses."

Rene -
I don't know whether this has anything to do with the content of their respective holy texts, though.

It doesn't. Christianity may not be a religion of violence right now, but that certainly doesn't excuse their history: Crusades, Inquisition, and so on. All waged under the same holy texts that are still in use.

Lingster -
Craig J. Reis:

Well, I'm taking this as proof that you're a troll. Congratulations, jackass.

And backs up my point.

It doesn't back up anything. UrbanDictionary's definitions are far more accurate; for one, they're not sterilized for content as with Wikipedia.

Regardless of who you married and how you're raising your daughter, the obvious anger in this post suggests you have an issue with Christians.

Holy @#$%! You're off your @#$% rocker!

But I have a blog with a vastly larger readership than this one and I can post there all I like, about whatever I like.

What you have are serious issues that need to be worked out. First and foremost, an issue with maturity.

(Lingster) "Regardless of who you married and how you're raising your daughter, the obvious anger in this post suggests you have an issue with Christians."

(PAD) "I do not respond well to slurs. Particularly slurs related to my family."

While it is true that Lingster has established himself as a paranoic who writes his own dictionary as he goes along, the particular statement at which PAD was outraged is not a slur. Lingster draws whatever conclusions he chooses about the fact that Mrs. David is a Catholic and her child is being raised as a Catholic (I would read some degree of tolerance for Catholics from that, but that's just me), but the text PAD quoted did not impugn either of them for being Catholic or PAD for being a Jew. Other things Lingster has written demonstrate a hatred of Islam (this is not quite unique to him...) and some lesser degree of distaste for Judaism (neither is this quite unique to him). Lingster's attitude to Christianity is more difficult to pinpoint: He loves the texts obsessively, but finds no factual basis for the religion. That's not something likely to make friends among either the devout or the radical atheists - It's not easy to discern just where he finds his friends.

As for the second part of PAD's quotation of Lingster, I have no quarrel: Lingster threatens to piss into the tent, and PAD correctly tells him to piss off. His suspicion that this exchange will be repeated out of context is probably correct. As for the first part, there are many slurs - against Muslims, Jews and PAD specifically - to be found in Lingster's rants: PAD just happened to select one of the few parts of Lingster's posts that isn't such.

Jeffrey Frawley: "While it is true that Lingster has established himself as a paranoic who writes his own dictionary as he goes along, the particular statement at which PAD was outraged is not a slur."

There is a time and a place for this kind of debate, and this isn't it. I'm not PAD. His thoughts and emotions are his own. But were I in his shoes, I'd need a little time to cool off before I'd be open to this kind of nitpicking... if I'd be open to it at all (and I probably wouldn't).

People find this kind of arguing for the sake of arguing to be annoying... and with good reason. You would be well-served to learn to look past your own obsessions and develop a bit of empathy.

Conveniently, all in this very thread:

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim.

[Jerry] That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder.

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

[Bobb] First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while.

The resolve to rephrase implies an admission of error.

Therefore, you are wrong in saying I admitted no error. How urgent will you make your admission, counselor?

[Peter] Guaranteed he's now going to surface on other boards and declare, "Peter David disliked what I had to say and told me to 'piss off.'" Without, of course, bothering to mention that I was playing off his threat about pissing in or outside of the tent (certainly a no-win scenario since, in either case, the tent winds up smelling like piss.) And others will then bounce their heads like bobble dolls and say, "Yeah, I always heard he was mean."

It doesn't help that you and your frequent commenters present yourselves as severe people who consider "do I need to admit I'm wrong to this person?" rather than "am I wrong?" in admitting an error.

Just for the record, I checked: Lingster's website clocks in a little over three thousand visitors in the past month

For the month of November, this site has had over thirty thousand.

PAD

Go figure. Lingster goes away, and another little troll shows up to continue trying to ruin everybody's day.

Will Internet wonders never cease.

And PAD, never let simple facts get in the way of a bad argument. ;)

The idea that any category of people should be hated for "killing Christ" makes absolutely no sense to me. The core teaching of the Christian faith is that the ultimate purpose of Jesus Christ's existence was to serve as a blood sacrifice in order to atone for the sins of mankind, thus sparing humans the fate of an automatic eternity in hell. So anger over Christ's execution implies that it was a BAD thing that he died... except if he hadn't died, he wouldn't have been able to fulfill his destiny, and mankind would have been denied their avenue for escaping eternal damnation... I'm sorry, WHAT was the anti-semites' point again...?

- Frank

With attempted murder you don't even need a victim, only an intended victim.

[Jerry] That is, in the simplest layman's terms, conspiracy to commit murder.

If you need my point rephrased: With conspiracy to murder you don't even need to inconvenience anyone, only an intent to inconvenience someone. With a hate crime, you still need someone inconvenienced.

[Bobb] First off, on attempted murder, way to miss a chance to, for once, admit you were wrong about something. Fessing up and allowing a mikea culpa might actually be a good thing for you to consider once in a while.

The resolve to rephrase implies an admission of error.

Therefore, you are wrong in saying I admitted no error. How urgent will you make your admission, counselor?

[Peter] Guaranteed he's now going to surface on other boards and declare, "Peter David disliked what I had to say and told me to 'piss off.'" Without, of course, bothering to mention that I was playing off his threat about pissing in or outside of the tent (certainly a no-win scenario since, in either case, the tent winds up smelling like piss.) And others will then bounce their heads like bobble dolls and say, "Yeah, I always heard he was mean."

It doesn't help that you and most of your frequent posters present yourselves as severe people who consider "who do I need to apologize to?" rather than "am I wrong?" in admitting an error.

[Craig] Lingster goes away, and another little troll shows up to continue trying to ruin everybody's day.

Thank you for demonstrating what I was referring to, big guy. It's a wonder anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say.

Million Monkey Output Indistinguishable From Mike Leung's Posts

Dec. 22, 2007
By Bill Myers

Mathmetical theoreticians at M.I.T. recently wrapped up an ambitious experiment involving a million monkeys banging away at the keyboards of a million PCs for the last five years. The goal was to determine whether any of those monkeys would, at random, write "Hamlet." Instead, the experiment produced an even more stunning result.

"Before the five years was up, each of the monkeys began typing screeds that were identical to those of an Internet jackass we've identified as Mike Leung," said lead researcher Bert Smith.

The researchers selected monkeys from the wild that had had no exposure to civilization, and kept them sequestered in cages with no Internet access, nor any contact with humans other than the researchers. Yet the results were the same across the board: each of the monkeys, within three years at most, began typing nonsense that matched, word-for-word, the postings of Internet crazy Mike Leung at PeterDavid.net.

Said Smith, "I'm not sure what the exact implications of this experiment are. But I'm sure that I don't ever want to meet this guy, Mike Leung. Clearly his thoughts are no different than those of crap-flinging, lesser-evolved primates."

Million Monkey Output Indistinguishable From Mike Leung's Posts

If you believe my posts are unguided, it's a wonder you feel the need to challenge anything I say. The most generous adjective for declaring war on unguided phenomena seems to be "stupid."

Bill Myers - When PAD says he responds badly to slurs, he is a big enough boy to know whether there is a slur. He is

1. a grown man
2. a professional writer
3. probably fairly bright,

so he doesn't need you to protect his delicate sensibilities. This professional writer took "Regardless of who you married and how you're raising your daughter, the obvious anger in this post suggests you have an issue with Christians" as a slur. (Just check: That's the quotation he selected to accompany his declaration that he doesn't respond well to slurs. There are other quotations he could have cited which would better merit that, but let's let him choose his own texts, just like a grown up.) Where is the slur? His wife and daughter are Catholics, apparently: Saying so is not a slur. Lingster thinks he hates Christians: That's probably not true, but my conception of a slur is something else.

Jeffrey: I'm afraid I'm not prepared to argue unless you pay.

He accused me of being religiously intolerant. That is a slur. My wife and youngest daughter are Christian. The inference to be drawn is that I harbor a resentment toward them because of that. That involves my family.

I strongly suggest this line of discussion not be pursued.

PAD

Frank Stone: "The idea that any category of people should be hated for 'killing Christ' makes absolutely no sense to me."

Probably because you're a thinking, reasonable person. Purveyors of hate, not so much.

Maybe you should offer to pay them, like the way you offered Jeffrey to think for compensation.

It's a wonder anyone feels the need to challenge anything I say.

Mike, going after you is like kicking the homeless guy who's sleeping in the park: it just isn't a challenge at all when the target is completely unable to defend themselves.

Better luck next time.

"Maybe you should offer to pay them, like the way you offered Jeffrey to think for compensation."

Perhaps I'm guilty of being more cute than clear. I quoted that line (paraphrased, actually, but whatever) from Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch because that's the point in the sketch where the argument's over (until the guy pays for another five minutes, anyway). It was my way of saying that this is arguing for the sake of arguing... and I want no part of it.

In fact, I so want no part of it that I'm not only done commenting in this thread, I'm done reading it. Want to take some potshots at me? Open season. Have a party.

Mike, going after you is like kicking the homeless guy who's sleeping in the park: it just isn't a challenge at all when the target is completely unable to defend themselves.

Thank you for denying your ridicule was based on any challenge to what I've said here. You are simply someone whose need to ridicule people isn't founded to any fidelity to the truth. That isn't my problem.

Million Monkey Output Indistinguishable From Mike Leung's Posts...

Clearly his thoughts are no different than those of crap-flinging, lesser-evolved primates....

It was my way of saying that this is arguing for the sake of arguing... and I want no part of it.

In fact, I so want no part of it that I'm not only done commenting in this thread, I'm done reading it. Want to take some potshots at me? Open season. Have a party.

Perhaps if I had your experiences I too would be full of hate like you.

PAD: After your wife had already contributed a post to this string, you were the one who brought her and your daughter up as proof you have no anti-Christian bias - not Lingster to make whatever point he was trying to make. You are understandably angry when your family is drawn into arguments here, and I have no intention of criticising either your wife or any of your daughters - but when you are the one to bring them up it is dishonest to pretend it's some new outrage.

Bill Myers - I did miss the Monty Python reference. It's interesting that you felt the need to protect PAD from bad old me. I give him the respect of thinking he's a grown man capable of defending himself verbally.

Jeffrey, I believe it was I who brought up Peter's marriage as a retort to Mushroomer who made the first accusation of some anti-Christian bias on PAD's part (Mushroomer then vanished and his argument was taken up by Lingster).

And while I think it's pretty obvious that, given the ample evidence of love and affection that PAD has for his family, the accusation of anti-Christian feelings is stupid beyond all belief, I am very sorry I brought it up. One forgets how low some people are willing to sink to keep from admitting an error.

(PAD) "To be specific, by the way, my wife and daughter are Catholic."

No, Bill Mulligan - you're off the hook. Lingster responded to what PAD said (and also what the misfiring neurons in his right lobe were telling him), rather than your comments. While I disagree with most of what Lingster says and believes, "Regardless of who you're married to and how you're raising your daughter" is a direct response to PAD's proclamation of to whom he he is married and how he's raising his daughter: PAD brought those two apparently sacrosanct persons into the conversation, but didn't like it that Lingster remembered that fact. If we are to leave those two alone, PAD is unwise to phrase his arguments "Oh yeah...well my wife __________, and not only that, my daughter ___________.

Warned you.

We're done.

PAD