Originally Posted By Anatole69 James Joyce Ulysses was first banned from coming to America because of its supposed prurient and pornographic content. It went to trial and those trying to prevent its publishing lost, so they appealed to the second circuit court and lost there as well. The decision was that the effect of a work of art shouldn't be judged by the most susceptible but by the average person. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Book_Called_Ulysses" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._Ulysses</a> Here I replace work of art with public discourse, since my earlier reference to Charles Manson applied just as well. By censuring one area based upon the most susceptible in society (whether it be art or public discourse) you have to accept censorship in another. The only argument against this I have seen mentioned in this thread is we don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater unless it is true, because of the inherent danger to social order. However, again I reiterate the suspect is not sane, and not an average person so we can't use the standards that would normally apply. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Except no one is talking about censoring Palin or anyone else. They have the right to spew their crap and poison the atmosphere. But we then have the right to call them on it and call for greater civility.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ That's fine with me. Holding anyones speech accountable for the actions of a madman though isn't. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ That doesn't prove your point anymore than your earlier comment. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 How about surprising me and doing something more than just posting ad homimim attacks... I am trying to stick to just discussing the post, I would hope others would do the same. - Anatole
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I do think this absolute attack on Palin and the Tea Party is an injustice to those who were killed. They were not killed by words, by symbols, or anything else in that vein. These people were injured and killed by an absolutely sick individual who had a gun. All of this talk about who is responsible takes away from what we should be really focused on...namely remembering innocent people who lost their lives in a horrific tragedy. As for rhetoric...I don't really care about who is more culpable. Both parties have some culpability and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. So, not to bring religion into the discussion but "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "How about surprising me and doing something more than just posting ad homimim attacks... I am trying to stick to just discussing the post, I would hope others would do the same. - Anatole" By calling you an island? Really? There have been some rather good posts written here that debunk your theory. You should read them.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ By addressing the person instead of the idea, you are committing ad hominem. And yes, I have read the whole thread. I could say the same thing to you, have you read all my posts... but it wouldn't prove my point any more than it doesn't prove yours.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You're kind of an island here, pal*** Save the tough guy crap, will ya? You, and I, and others, have from time to time tried to come across as "tough" or "no-nonsense" or whatever, and it's uniquely lame here on the internets. So why not drop it, already?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<All of this talk about who is responsible takes away from what we should be really focused on...namely remembering innocent people who lost their lives in a horrific tragedy.>> I disagree - the natural response to something horrible like this is to try and find a reason why someone would do something so horrible. People want to understand the motives for why someone who is mentally unstable was pushed to the point where they felt it justified to shoot and kill innocent people. If we can lay some of the blame on the current political situation in this country, and all of the vitriol that is being spewed out by all participants, then those people need to know that they are partly responsible for this tragedy. And just maybe, knowing that will help calm the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As for rhetoric...I don't really care about who is more culpable. Both parties have some culpability and to suggest otherwise is ignorant. So, not to bring religion into the discussion but "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."*** Sorry, but I'm not buying that uniquely right wing talking point for one second at this point. How many left wingers carried guns to political events? How many carried signs about "watering the tree of liberty"? How many talked about "second amendment solutions"? Wahoo, I don't buy what you're trying to sell, and YES I've seen plenty of reactionary "well, didn't Obama say bring a knife to a gunfight!?" crap...but I'm not buying the false equivalence crap anymore... There was one group fomenting violence, very vocally and without a care in the world as to the consequences, I think you know that, and you should distance yourself from this kind of crap if you don't want to be associated with it. If not, that means you advocate it...I'm sickened by the LACK of response from RESPONSIBLE Republicans and Conservatives at this time. Seriously, sickened by it. Elizabeth Hasslebeck, at least, said the right thing. Who else is going to find some guts and admit that this threatening poison and death is no means towards democracy!?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We could learn something from Christina's father: "I think it's a random act of violence. I think some of it is media-driven, because people have begun to learn they can solve their problems and make a big splash," he said. "I don't want to politicize this thing. I want to remember our daughter. I want the country to remember our daughter." I hope that, if I'm asked a year from now, I will remember Christina's name and not the shooter's. Phyllis Schneck, age 79 Judge John Roll, age 63 Dorothy Morris, age 63 Gabe Zimmerman, age 30 Dorward Stoddard, age 76...died as he covered his wife's body to protect her. Christina Green, age 9...a year older than my son.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper X...I'm not saying I like any of it. I revoked my status as a Republican because they have lost touch with those things that I value. But, I am saying both sides share some responsibily. Are extremists on the Republican side more violent with their conversations? I'd say yes. But, it took me about two seconds to Google Democratic maps with bullseyes on them that were very similar to the maps Palin had out there. Frankly, I don't buy what you are selling either X. The accused, by the way, is a registered Independent according to CNN.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I hope that, if I'm asked a year from now, I will remember Christina's name and not the shooter's.>> Is this some attempt to make people feel guilty for daring to think about the causes of this tragedy? How am I possibly dishonoring the memory of this little girl by wanting to understand the motives of her killer. This isn't about trying to score some political points - it's about trying to pull America back from the precipice before this kind of thing becomes even more common. I truly believe we will see much more of this senseless violence if our political leaders, and media, don't tone down their insane rhetoric. As cold as this sounds, whether I remember this poor child's name or not a year from now really isn't that important. What is important is learning a lesson from this tragedy, and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I like you in this thread mawnck, but not so much in the Bill O'Reilly one<< Yay for separation of Church and State!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm sickened by the LACK of response from RESPONSIBLE Republicans and Conservatives at this time.<< You really need to add Frum Forum to your bookmarks. <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/david-frum-why-extreme-language-still-matters" target="_blank">http://www.frumforum.com/david...-matters</a> <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/what-palin-needed-to-say-after-giffords-shooting" target="_blank">http://www.frumforum.com/what-...shooting</a>
Originally Posted By mele There are two reasons why this sort of conversation should happen. 1.) Clearly people feel very passionately about the tone of politics today is leading towards something very dangerous. Whether this case is political or not, this is a huge issue. There is no denying this fact. And since there is really not much that can be discussed about the actual case, other than memorials, this is how people have chosen to vent their fears and frustrations. 2.) The one issue that ties VERY closely with this issue is the healthcare debate and the Tea Party/Republican/Libertarian wish for a vastly smaller government. One other thing that directly relates to this incident is gun control. All incredibly important issues. To not discuss them would be the biggest slap in the face to the victims. Remembering their names in a year will mean nothing if nothing changes.
