Dangerous Games - "Point 'em Out, Knock 'em Out"
Posted by richrobinson 12 years, 5 months ago to The Gulch: General
This needs more air play in the media. A kid playing the "knockout game" tries to taser a guy who has a pistol. The taser didn't work but the pistol did.
Sad that these kids are just going along with this stupid 'game' without asking, hey, why are we just hitting people? Isn't there a game on we could watch, or a new album we could listen to or a ball someone has we could play a pickup game or three with? Oh, also, what about this thing called school? Does that still exist? Homework? Maybe you could take out the trash every so often? Do the dishes? Mow the lawn? Visit an old relative, help out a little? Join a club that doesn't involve bashing people in the head?
This kind of senseless stuff is more like a scene from 'Game of Thrones' on the Kingsroad than an actual game. Seven hells, when will it end?
And there is absolutely an entitlement mentality--'the world owes me something' is the way to survive for some folks. Too bad they don't see that they're on the heaviest end of a sinking ship...
As it turned out, I was right. Fortunately, the majority of the jury were not whack jobs, but in post-decision interviews it was pretty clear that with a few changes, the jury could have hung or returned a guilty verdict - despite the overwhelming evidence of a purely righteous shoot.
Look back on my previous post about Yuri Bezmenov ~ former Soviet Propagandist. He says in reference to indoctrination, that once they are fully indoctrinated, you are stuck with them. There is nothing you can do to change their minds. It takes between 15-20 years to do this. The only way to counter this, is to start with a new generation, and even then, we have to wait another 15-20 years before we could see a change.
Your wish for the msm to report this with all angles covered is futile. You have a better chance of being the next guy on the moon than the media actually stepping up to report the truth about anything.
Start killing these perps and the "game" will end.
Lets consider what these kids are educated about. It is not right and wrong, as that is not allowed, even as a philosophical idea. They are subjected to a variety of values clarification lessons from moron teachers who tell them they can decide, at very young ages, about values. Let's see, that is without any religion as basis, without Ayn Rand or any basis in philosophy as basis (their reading skills would not permit that, and without parent's input, as that is discouraged. When they turn on parents, that is a total surprise from these self-proclaimed psychological experts.
These kids are not getting academics, nor responsibility and consequences. They are handed self-esteem and an idea of reincarnation if anything goes wrong. What else can we expect?
By the way, parents can ask for better, but the union is strong and this is the goal of the federal education dept. - the chaos needed to transform the US into a socialist state.
Sharpless?? Where's Bill Cosby???
But, yes it does.
Favorite line from "Fallen Angels" btw...
"We'll get them high with illegal droogs".
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/06717...
The recidivism rate for dead criminals is precisely zero.
See the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments, for starters.
to which YOU REPLIED, "That kinda violates Constitutionally protected rights, but what the hell."
See the indentation? The dotted lines?
If you still don't understand how this all works, get someone to explain it to you.
But I also believe that if you're sentenced to 5 years incarceration, then you shouldn't have to worry about being raped, beaten, enslaved or otherwise abused. The incarceration is your sentence, not anything the other prisoners do to you.
I would like to see the whipping post and stocks brought back. Say you're charged with drunk driving. You're given a choice of 30 days in jail, or a month of weekends sitting in the stocks in front of the courthouse, in full view of the public (with a guard to see you stay healthy.)
First offense marijuana trafficking... a year in jail or 10 lashes, your choice. (not being precise, here, just giving the idea).
This way your punishment is over and done with, you keep your job, your bills stay paid, your family is intact, and you remember it.
Oh, and if you are given a prison sentence, and you act up... your life is forfeit. Prison riot? Just shoot them. I recently saw a video where a group of prisoners cornered a guard and were beating hell out of him. Put him in the hospital before 3 other guards could get there, and it was a free-for-all.
Uh-uh. Firing slits in all the walls. You attack a guard, you get shot, dead. Period. Instead they just got additional time.
Look, if you decide to put marijuana, or LSD, or cocaine, or heroin or any other drug into your system, isn't that YOUR choice to make (and not the government's)? The government doesn't intercede when you smoke a cigarette (which is far more dangerous) or eat a doughnut (and we know that obesity is a much bigger problem in America than smoking dope).
What about freedom? What about personal choice? What about the fact that there may actually be beneficial aspects to smoking pot?
There are two arguments here: The first is that a person should be free to do to themselves what they want to do. We tolerate overeating, obesity, diabetes, self-inflicted heart disease, sloth, tattoos, sex-change operations, drinking alcohol… but draw the line at pot?
Second, there's the utility argument: Pot's less damaging than alcohol or cigarettes, or overeating. Do you want to ban booze and cigarettes and create a "food police"? Or are you just inconsistent?
About the only drugs I might exert some control over would be antibiotics - and that only because people taking them "until they feel better" create a breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant disease (like the antibiotic-resisitant tuberculosis that's flooding over our southern border with the invasion of criminal aliens). But if someone wants to burn up their brain, or their body or give themselves a heart attack - why is it YOUR business?
Of course, people should be held responsible for their ACTIONS regarding other people. If you use PCP and attack someone, you go to jail. But the most common form of violence among pot smokers is ripping open a bag of Doritos. So why any penalty at all?
Your right to blow your mind ends in my country.
First, once you ingest these drugs, they seriously degrade your ability to make rational judgments. They are also highly addictive. These are reasons to make trafficking in them illegal.
Once your judgment is gone, someone else's judgment must replace it. If it's mine, your sorry ass goes to jail.
A cigarette is no where nearly as dangerous as marijuana. I've seen people come to work who've smoked a cigarette, and people come to work who've smoked marijuana. The latter put my safety in danger; the former did not. So just stuff that nonsense right now.
I've also worked with an idiot who did LSD when younger. He was frightening to work around. The day he quit, he dropped his pants and wiped his ass on the boss's office doorknob.
I'm perfectly consistent; you're presenting false assertions. Pot is not less damaging than alcohol or cigarettes. Pot is not, has never been, and with God's grace will never be, a part of America's traditional culture, as have alcohol and cigarettes. Pot is also a gateway drug; those stupid enough to smoke marijuana are stupid enough to try more dangerous drugs.
You eating yourself into a coma doesn't affect me nearly as much as you walking into a room I'm in smoking a joint. The former may disgust me a bit; the latter may get me put in jail for attempted murder.
It is my business when it affects my safety and the nature of my society. I don't want to live in a society of scumbags, which is why I fight the crony capitalists and progressives, and drug addicts.
I would think that people who support chemicals which impair or remove their ability to make rational judgments would be very unpopular here, since this place worships "reason" uber alles. To the best of my knowledge, Objectivists don't view individual liberty as license, nor hedonism as rational behavior.
If you can figure out a way to ingest pot without smoking it, then we can talk. If you can reverse the phoney war on tobacco, then we can talk.
Yes, I'm hostile to pot smokers; more so since I had to try to explain to the stinky, pink-eyed, heavy-lidded, wobbly idiots 5 times that the water bottles with the listed price above them were indeed the cheapest price in the store for water, only to have the wander off (squirrel!), and since I had to help another pair of pink-eyed, stinky, heavy-lidded wobbly jackasses pick between two identical burritos, as they gobbled down pickles and other food items for which they had not yet paid.
I lost at least one or two IQ points having to occupy the same space as they without showing my utter contempt.
Drug use equals = dependence = welfare recipient = democrat voter
In the end, we pay the bill so the drug user can use his/her drugs.
Your Country? What are you even doing on this board if you can't accord freedom to others? I'm sure the Al Queda boards would love your dictatorial approach - it's so in line with their own.
Pot is not very addictive.
From an article in Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...
"Based on his review of the scientific literature, between 10 to 30% of regular users will develop dependency. Only about 9% will have a serious addiction."
Pot is NOT as addictive as cigarettes or booze.
"Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive. It is much harder to quit smoking cigarettes than it is to quit smoking pot."
Cigarettes are FAR MORE dangerous than pot.
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resour...
"Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. "
Whaty about alcohol?
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/a...
There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States. This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.
(In case you're wondering what the second leading cause of death in the US is, it's NOT pot. It's overeating.)
Cigarettes and booze are the #1 and #3 causes of death in America. Period. So don't give me any crap about marijuana being more dangerous.
What about drug overdoses? Surely "demon weed" must kill thousands of people through overdose!?
It's not even illegal drugs that do most of the killing.
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsa...
"Drug overdose was the leading cause of injury death in 2010. Among people 25 to 64 years old, drug overdose caused more deaths than motor vehicle traffic crashes."
What kind of drugs?
"In 2010, of the 38,329 drug overdose deaths in the United States, 22,134 (60%) were related to pharmaceuticals."
I couldn't find anything by the CDC related to death by pot as an overdose. Most sources put the number at... zero.
Well, surely those hopped up pot-heads must be leading the destruction derby on the highways?
Yeah, there's some of that. Of course, alcohol leads the way...
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/im...
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
...
Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol."
It's not clear which drugs - pot, cocaine or alcohol - caused these fatalities - but even if we say it was 100% pot, alcohol is still 172% more likely to cause a fatal accident.
I managed a company with a no-tolerance drug policy and implemented the first ever company-wide drug testing. We bagged 5 people. One was a POS I really wanted to get rid of. Turned out he popped positve for meth, pot and one other drug. The others tested positive for pot only. Of those, one was an average employee. One was my 2nd-best worker overall. One was an above-average worker. One was our "employee of the quarter" for his innovation in reducing manufacturing costs and a very solid and consistent performer. Fortunately, we were able to give everyone a "warning" the first time around (except the meth head who tried to adulterate his pee cup and got fired for THAT!) The employee of the quarter was eventually fired for testing positve a second time, as was the substandard employee. Point is, of the 4 pot users, three were above-average employees, and two of them were top notch. It was a small company, about 50 employees, so I knew everyone personally. Basically, half of the best employees I had were pot smokers! Oh, and the BIGGEST screwup I had was someone who was completely drug free. Go figure.
Gateway Drug? That would be alcohol.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/st...
>> "If you can figure out a way to ingest pot without smoking it, then we can talk. If you can reverse the phoney war on tobacco, then we can talk."
Appears you've never seen the movie, "I love you Alice B. Toklas". Everyone who has can laugh at you now.
>> "I lost at least one or two IQ points having to occupy the same space as they without showing my utter contempt."
Want to be careful about that. Doesn't appear you have...
...said the misogynist...
I've never seen reefer madness. I have, however, seen the effects of illicit drugs.
You must have had some lousy workers.
No, alcohol isn't a gateway drug. It is borderline, and it is ingrained in our culture.
And I love how you try to use the percentage of alcohol related motor vehicle deaths to justify legalizing marijuana. Alcohol is a lot more available than marijuana, since the latter is still illegal. So, let's legalize marijuana, and that 18% will get smaller, right?
As for the pharmaceutical overdoses, you don't cite how many were due to *misuse* of the prescription medication, such as using somebody else's drugs, faking prescriptions, pharmaceuticals obtained from illicit sources... in other words, drug abuse.
The tobacco statistics are bs, because they attribute *everything* to tobacco, along with the BS of second hand smoke, as part of the war on tobacco. "He died of HIV"... "Was he a smoker?"... "uhhh... says here that he was."... "Damned tobacco"... (writing)"Cause of death: tobacco related"... Here I thought heart disease was the number one cause of death in America. Silly me listening to those commercials and news items.
No, of course I haven't seen the movie, it's a Peter Sellers movie, and it involves a hippy who isn't mangled or horribly butchered.
Yes, Marijuana in brownies, so hilarious, giving them to unsuspecting "normal" people.
As marijuana can be put in brownies, it can be put in a pill... and yet it's not. You... people (I use the term loosely) still want to smoke it around decent people. Even when they let you use "medical marijuana", you don't go get a bottle of pills, you go buy pot to smoke.
I'll approve of gay marriage before I approve of legalizing illicit drugs. Gay marriage is bad for society, but it's not nearly as immediately destructive.
Here's an idea; go get high before you vote next time... then you can giggle to yourself as you pull levers randomly...
Let's see... 1940s... illicit drugs such as marijuana aren't common, potheads and other drug addicts are treated with the contempt they deserve; everybody smokes, many people drink, yet, America is #1 in the world, on the rise, building the future... 2000s... potheads are everywhere, America is on the decline, nobody can take us seriously... yes, there's a connection.
If this is the acme of your reasoning skills, one might be forgiven for thinking that YOU are exhibit #1 in proof of America's decline.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/inde......
Also, there's the whole "child pornography" thing. There's a case where a 16 year old girl sent naked pictures of herself to her 17 year old boyfriend. Someone in the girl's family got wind of it and raised a stink. BOTH TEENS WERE CHARGED, the girl with creating "kiddie porn" and the boy with receiving/possession. Incidentally, do you know that if someone sends you "kiddie porn" pictures, and you delete them, you can still be charged if the pictures can be "resurrected" from your computer? Technically, someone could send you an ENCRYPTED file that you can't even read, or you could just click on a web page link, and a file could be downloaded to your computer you cannot even read. But you're guilty, because the law does not care how the images got on your computer. There's no limit on size of the images either. So imagine the smallest detectable image of "kiddie porn" being on your computer in encrypted form - and making you susceptible to millions of dollars in fines and decades in jail even though you have no idea the file exists. This is the current state of the law.
Here are some teen "kiddie porn" story links:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-......
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/16/......
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/......
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensla......
http://campbelllawobserver.com/2013/07/s......
You think I'm kidding about being prosecuted for images you didn't even know were on your computer? Check this out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/01/16/......
Now I'm all for going after people who subject kiddies to the process of making kiddie porn. And I'm all for going after the people who profit by selling kiddie porn. But that's not who the cops go after. No, it's "too hard" to catch the people who are actually raping children and videotaping the acts for sale, or even those who sell or purchase such videos. Much easier to go after they pervert who's sitting on his couch at home whacking off to it, because, you see, HE'S NOT HURTING ANYONE. Neither is he profiting from hurting someone. And it's sometimes entirely possible he doesn't even know he's doing anything wrong.
How can that be?
Well, just one example. Quite a few years back there was a porn star who got into the "business" when she was (IIRC) 16. Tracy Lords. She made a number of films that were distributed and sold through normal adult porn channels. No one knew she was under 18. Then the word got out. After that, she made one more porn flick. Now that film is legal to own in America, but none of the others are. But in Europe, the age at which people can enter the "world of porn" is 16. So all of Tracy Lords prior films are legal (and I have read, available) there. So if you happen to buy one and come back to the US, guess what? You're a criminal!
The whole issue of porn and under-age sex is pretty screwed up. Not so very long ago, the age of consent in some states was as low as 12 years old. That's right, 12, 13, 14 year olds could get married, have sex, raise kids. I don't know what "magic" imbued the government with the "wisdom" that it's okay for a 23-year-old to have sex with a 16-year-old, but criminal behavior if the same two people have sex a year later when one is 24 and the other 17. But that's the law in Florida, and believe me, Florida doesn't corner the market on stupid laws.
For that matter, it's okay to train 18-year-olds to kill, give them machine-guns and tell them to go slaughter Iraqis or Afghanis, but it's NOT okay for those same 18 year olds to own a handgun or drink alcohol? See any disconnect there? Government issued machine gun? Can't own a private handgun? And then there's the whole charging minors "as adults" for various crimes. Wait a second… the person is of the age where they are a minor, but you just arbitrarily decide that they should be tried as an adult? How about we apply that to sex laws? "The 13-year-old should be treated as an adult when having sex with her 45-year-old boyfriend"!??
Don't look for any sense in government. You won't find it.
Why am I not surprised that you're defending this decadence, also?
You're not an objectivist. You're a hedonist.
You working for "future crime" now?
I'd destroy you with facts - but I can see your mind is immune to facts.
More, perfectly in line with the Nazi belief of a "master race" (country), Hiraghm has expressed his view that only an American (master race) may sit in judgment of an American (master race) and that 1000 Cambodians should be slaughtered in the event that an American violates Cambodian law and is judged by that law.
Where is the hyperbole? Isn't this precisely the view the Nazis took? That they were the only ones who mattered, and slaughtering everyone else was acceptable?
BambiB's law says anyone who invokes Godwin's law when a Nazi comparison is perfectly apt, is a moron. You're it!
You can take up your appeal for your Godwin's Law violation with the forum, but the law is pretty concise. You have the only Third Reich reference post in this thread....
You could just 'delete' it?
If I were given a choice of a month of weekends in the stocks or a month in jail, I'll take the stocks.
If I were given a choice between a lashing and a year in jail, I'll take the lashing, even though the idea of it scares the crap out of me.
A year is a long time; God knows what could happen to me in prison in a year. But, one thing is certain, going to prison for a year will screw up my life, such as it is.
Man! We could balance the budget auctioning off lashes for Hillary!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._...
I followed this at the time, and realized that if Fay had been returned to America for punishment, he would have received nothing but celebrity.
Read the story...he wasn't punished all that much, in the end.
Fay's history after coming home, does not make his family proud....
You seem to observe an equality that doesn't exist?