The Gaming Den

Caedrus wrote:Still not owning up to your own words. You said that I said that rape was justified. Nowhere in this post have you backed up that statement.

Stop being a fucking weasel you fucking weasel. I never said "You said rape is justifiable" But you don't see me quibbling about exact wording to hide my actual statements, because my actual statements are not heinous shittery.

Clickml: "I continue to disagree.

I suppose I could be getting hung up on different definitions of "better." In my mind I was synonymizing it with "more justificatiable." If you are using "improved" or "better" to refer to "more understandable," then I would happily yield that point and stick to that while it is more understandable, it is not in any sense more justifiable from an ethical perspective."

You: "So you disagree that it is better to commit violence against a person you actually take issue with rather than innocent bystanders. That, instead, friendly fire is not worse than properly directed fire. That harming someone for a reason is not better than attacking someone for no reason whatsoever.

That's sickening, Clikml."

You specifically said that is was sickening for clickml to think that raping a boss and raping a wife are equally justifiable. That implies that you see a difference in justification between the two actions.

clikcml says they are equally justifiable, you say he is sick for thinking that. You are implying that he is wrong. You are implying that you think raping his boss is more justifiable than raping his wife.

Morzas wrote:You guys should stop threatening each other with bodily harm (don't even try to deny that saying "You are the one claiming that me beating you to death with a tire iron is more justifiable than strangling a cat, because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification" isn't a very obvious threat) and chill.

You don't know me very well, so I'll excuse this, but A) No it's not a threat. As evidenced by my assertion that the action would be wrong, even though it is counter to his assertion that I would be more justified doing so than strangling a kitten. B) I absolutely would hit him with a Tire Iron in the face were he present, because that's what I do to people who insist that rapists have any justification whatsoever.

I never said "You said rape is justifiable"

Yeah, actually, you did.

beating you to death with a tire iron is more justifiable than strangling a cat, because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification

Anyways, Kaelik's going on ignore for being a screaming disingenuous twat accusing me of supporting rape and people hurting others for "threats to their culture."

I will clarify that I do think the Dalai Llama is a jerk, the rioters are unjustified, and rape is not justified in any of the circumstances that were mentioned.

I should also say that I perhaps reacted a little strongly to Clikml, and it is in fact a fair point that the negation of what I said is "not all" instead of "all are not." So I rescind that bit. Misunderstanding on my part.

Perhaps I should clarify my own words:

Erm. Are you trying to imply that riots are better if they attack the people they are angry at?

I would venture to say that it is generally better if people actually attack whoever they actually have a motive against rather than completely random people, yeah. Senseless, unmotivated violence would worry me more than if I could actually assign a motive to someone.

Caedrus wrote:Anyways, Kaelik's going on ignore for being a screaming disingenuous twat accusing me of supporting rape and people hurting others for "threats to their culture."

I will clarify that I do think the Dalai Llama is a jerk, the rioters are unjustified, and rape is not justified in any of the circumstances that were mentioned.

I should also say that I perhaps reacted a little strongly to Clikml, and it is in fact a fair point that the negation of what I said is "not all" instead of "all are not." So I rescind that bit. Misunderstanding on my part.

So you are putting me on ignore for being right because your statement actually does say what you denied it says for the last 5 posts? Fucking retarded. Shove it up your ass and die, at least you admitted that you are totally wrong and rescinded your statement that rape is more justifiable (sort of).

Still better than TD.

EDIT: Stop fucking back editing your posts. No I said "claim" which is different from 'said' Because one implies that you said explicitly that, the other that you made a claim which is logically equivalent to it (but you were too stupid to see that and then denied it when it was made obivious instead of just admitting you were wrong).

But you have to be a fucking weasel and try to weasel out of shit instead of just saying, "Yeah I was wrong, not all violence is better when aimed at the person harming you."

Kaelik wrote: So you are putting me on ignore for being right because your statement actually does say what you denied it says for the last 5 posts?

What, exactly, did I say that my statement included that I denied during my last 5 posts? Oh right, nothing.

All I denied was your accusations that I support rape, you disingenuous twat.

The only one who has denied their own words in this case is you.

I never said "You said rape is justifiable"

That right there is a lie, and a stupid one, because anyone can just scroll back and see where you posted that. Or where multiple people quoted you regarding it.

Fucking retarded. Shove it up your ass and die, at least you admitted that you are totally wrong and rescinded your statement that rape is more justifiable (sort of).

Yet again you prove that you cannot read. I rescinded the statement accusing Clikml. Nor did I ever claim that "rape is more justifiable." You just fucking made that up.

Caedrus wrote:

Kaelik wrote: So you are putting me on ignore for being right because your statement actually does say what you denied it says for the last 5 posts?

What, exactly, did I say that my statement included that I denied during my last 5 posts? Oh right, nothing.

All I denied was your accusations that I support rape, you disingenuous twat.

Fucking retarded. Shove it up your ass and die, at least you admitted that you are totally wrong and rescinded your statement that rape is more justifiable (sort of).

Yet again you prove that you cannot read. I rescinded the statement accusing Clikml. Nor did I ever claim that "rape is more justifiable."

So you still believe that "All violence is significantly improved when directed at the person you actually have a problem with." Were "significantly improved" means "more justifiable"?

Kaelik wrote:

Morzas wrote:You guys should stop threatening each other with bodily harm (don't even try to deny that saying "You are the one claiming that me beating you to death with a tire iron is more justifiable than strangling a cat, because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification" isn't a very obvious threat) and chill.

You don't know me very well, so I'll excuse this, but A) No it's not a threat. As evidenced by my assertion that the action would be wrong, even though it is counter to his assertion that I would be more justified doing so than strangling a kitten. B) I absolutely would hit him with a Tire Iron in the face were he present, because that's what I do to people who insist that rapists have any justification whatsoever.

Can you step back, chill out and READ what you're posting for a second? You're talking about beating people up and kitten-strangling in a thread about the Dalai Lama. Do you think anyone here besides you two wants to read this? If you guys want to have a flame war, I think you should do it via PM, e-Mail, IM, IRC or any other number of options that keep your pointless bullshit away from here.

Morzas wrote:Can you step back, chill out and READ what you're posting for a second? You're talking about beating people up and kitten-strangling in a thread about the Dalai Lama. Do you think anyone here besides you two wants to read this? If you guys want to have a flame war, I think you should do it via PM, e-Mail, IM, IRC or any other number of options that keep your pointless bullshit away from here.

The Dali Lama is someone I would strangle given a chance, seeing as he is a chauvinistic asshole who defends, amongst many other disgraceful things, rape.

Was I supposed to magically become all Zen because the thread is about the Dali Lama?

Hey, you're back on topic!

EDIT: I guess I should say something on-topic, too. The Dalai Lama is a douchebag and Tibetans are deeply fucked. Their culture is dying out, their land is a quaint tourist attraction for Han Chinese to visit and they can't get any decent jobs. Their only realistic choices here are continued rioting and bitching or abandoning their way of life and going through the painful process of seeking mainstream acceptance into modern Chinese society.

Hoo boy.

I apologize for thinking you were referring to anger as justification Caedrus. That's what I was talking about in your initial quote of me and I thought we were delving deeper into that particular discussion that was already in motion. So from that assumption I equivocated "people you have a problem with" to be the same as "people you are angry with," due to my misunderstanding that we had branched off onto a different topic.

My point from the get-go onwards had been that of all the ethical justifications for violence, anger is not among them. It is an emotional state of mind, and not a rational basis for pretty much anything other than, well, being grumpy.

So it would seem that we were talking past each other almost entirely since then.

I will agree that people attacking without reason, even anger, is probably more worrying than people attacking out of an understandable, if flawed basis. Mostly because it is totally unpredictable, and it is pretty friggin hard to counteract something that is unpredictable. Anger can be soothed, but craziness, that's a tough cat.

One could of course make the argument that rioters fit the category of attackers from craziness as well, since they are not attacking individuals that they have an individual beef with, but rather upon whatever irrational drive fires up the mob. A mob will lash out at people in general based upon their appearance, because that is the only way mobs can identify targets... which quite frankly is the same thing as attacking people for no reason at all. It is usually unpredictable what will set a riot off, or who the individual targets will be.

clikml wrote:Hoo boy.

I apologize for thinking you were referring to anger as justification Caedrus.

And I apologize for my misinterpretation as well.

So it would seem that we were talking past each other almost entirely since then.

More or less.

Anywho, in the case of riots it's something of a tangent since the individuals getting attacked are not really being targeted because of who they are individually, but rather what they appear to be. The rioters aren't conscientiously doing anything, including target selection or identification. Everyone attacked may as well be considered an innocent bystander since they are being attacked on the basis of their appearance.

When the Tibetians were burning the shops of the Han Chinese, they were doing so because they see the Han as invading their land and trying to erase their culture. Ergo, in their minds, they are taking an action which they feel is justified: they are killing the Han/committing arson for the purpose of driving the Han out of their land. They don't particularly care who the Han are as individuals, they care who they are as a population/social group.

When the blacks were burning the shops of the Asians in LA because some white cops beat up Rodney King, that was simply them lashing out randomly. There's a big difference between the two situations, in that in one situation, they are acting directly against their percieved oppressor, whereas in the other situation, they are acting against people who had nothing to do with the oppression they are rioting in response to.

That doesn't mean that the Tibetians burning the shops of Han who live in Tibet is good, just that it isn't the same thing as the LA riots and that comparing the two is intellectually dishonest. And I do think it is BETTER. That still doesn't mean I think it is actually a good thing. Getting the flu is better than having your foot shot off, but I'd rather be healthy.

How do you randomly target one ethnic group? There has to be some underlying dissent or perceived reason. Shit like that isn't just "random."

In the case of L.A. riots, asian americans, especially shop owners were often attacked likely because they were perceived as being successful while so many people were suffering under economic hardships and unemployment. Add to that there was a killing of a young black girl by a shopowner of korean dissent and she got off with a wrist slap for a horrible crime. That event was noted as a possible additional trigger for the riots.


What sets a mob off may make some sort of sense and may direct them to people who look like their targets, but once it gets started a mob does not do anything for a conscientious reason like protecting their culture or stupid bullshit like that. They are out of control including self-control.

The native Tibetans didn't go "Hey, let's make an organized unrest and try and purge the invaders." They snapped at a confluence of events, went mad and targeted a bunch of people who fit certain appearances. It was a mob like any other. Incidentally many Tibetans were having financial troubles and targeted many of the shops that were owned by people other than themselves who were doing better.

See a pattern yet? Locals targeting immigrants who were also shop owners, and the locals were suffering from a period of exceptional economic difficulties that were the fuel ignited by a few social injustices (it was believed that some monks had been arrested and possibly killed).

The onset of riots can be somewhat directed, but once they get started there is nothing that makes sense about them. It is pure senseless violence. That's all mobs have to offer. The only comparison by which the two riots can be said to be better or worse, is not in who was targeted or why, but in which one did more damage and cost in human terms.



My References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latasha_Harlins

There's also serious cultural differences between Black Americans and Koreans/Vietnamese. Religion is different, social constructs are different, the size and connections of families is different, and even how each greets people is different.

It's considered rude to meet someone's gaze in those two cultures and yet Americans find it rude not to meet someone's gaze.

So there totally was tons of distrust just based upon opposing social cues, leading to the wrong people being victimized.

-Crissa