Men killed outside Art Exhibition in Dallas

[BruceVC]

 

Having worked on a farm as a lad i've never seen the point of the disdain for swine, they're actually quite clean, tidy and fastidious in their pens. I assume it's the mudbaths that they indulge in that bothered early Muslims.

 

Pigs were one of animals that often had parasites in past before better domestication and medicines that were dangerous for humans, which is speculated to be reason why Jews considered them as unclean and I would guess that it was similar reason for early Muslims. But one don't write in holy book that you can't eat this meat because it may make you sick or even kill you, but that some holy power has deemed animal to be unclean/dirty/etc..

 

And threat from those parasites has not yet fully disappeared.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110502-wild-pigs-parasites-animals-pork-science-health-nation/

 

 

Dude NOTHING will stop me eating Pork, I eat all Pork products, nothing quite better than the smell of bacon frying in the morning

 

I don't care about any stinking parasites ..." Pork for President " 

 

 

[Nonek]

 

 

I used bacon because both Jews and Muslims regard it as 'unclean', and because that aversion is exactly as arbitrary as whether or not you can draw Muhammed or write the non transliteration of Jehovah or not*. Generally speaking there's also a dichotomy between the two, where deliberately targeting Jewish religious practices is seen as bad while deliberately targeting Muslim ones is seen as 'free speech' and sticking it to the terrists, usually by the same people.

 

Personally I think they're either both free speech or both hate speech. But I'm not going to waste my time worrying about which because either way the idea behind contravening them is just to be offensive and provocative, and is not to make an actual point- it's their right to be a git and they have to assert and protect the right to be a git against the dark night of encroaching lack of gitness, basically. Well yeah. Oddly enough, most people do absolutely fine without asserting their right to be a git and only attention courtesans, psychopaths and the chronically dumb actually revel and feel proud of being one.

 

*I could of course write ____ instead but, meh, I can make the point that I personally think it's silly without rubbing any orthodox type Jews' faces in it for no actual benefit.

 

Having worked on a farm as a lad i've never seen the point of the disdain for swine, they're actually quite clean, tidy and fastidious in their pens. I assume it's the mudbaths that they indulge in that bothered early Muslims.

 

Putting that aside however i've been looking up the organisation that backed this display today, the ADSF or something, they're a nationalist group similar to the English Defence League (National Front by any other name,) and in fact their leader a young lady was barred from entering Britain recently to speak at an EDF rally. It was clearly an incitement and villification but I still say that they are well within their rights to stage it, and would defend their free speech. However to ensure parity I would also stage a display on Islamic history, achievements, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, culture and languages, as well as the cultures that were present before Muhammed came to the mountain.

 

Teach, display and wave in the faces of such people as the previous organisers how much the cradle of civilisation has gifted the world, and how much later civilisation were unknowingly or not influenced by their cultures. As a last resort throw on some Harryhausen Sinbad films and enjoy the tales that entranced many a child of my era. I think this would be a more appropriate response personally.

 

 

Mmm.... a reasonable post from you Nonek and one I agree with, its a strange thing for me to see 

 

Nonek you said earlier that Freedom of Speech is basically a foundation of Western cultures which as you know I support and believe in

 

In the UK  there have been several cases of people being prosecuted  for Twitter comments especially when it comes to racist comments. How do you reconcile this ? Does the UK not believe in free speech because by prosecuting  people who just make Twitter comments isn't this a contradiction to saying "we believe in free speech " ?

 

 

I always strive to be reasonable, rational and moderate, i'm not some one note troll. I truly support free speech, I do not just say so and then suggest we devalue it like an idiot would.

 

As to the recent multiple arrests for online comments, this is a hypocritical and dangerous precedent, millions of equal or worse comments go unpunished, and there is no parity or equality in whom is prosecuted. There are actual laws being broken every day that go unpunished, such as use of prostitution, drug dealing, tax avoidance, and assault, as well as societal problems that should be addressed first such as the working classes growing dependance on food banks to survive, the growing number of suicides amongst young men, and the ghettos that blight once industrious pleasant towns. To target verbal onslaughts above these very real problems is both idiotic and reprehensible, and caters to the fashionable hate culture developing around the virtual world that some choose to support.

 

The United Kingdom has for a long time now been indulging in a steady attack on basic personal liberties and freedoms that were hard fought for and won, under the guise of tightening security against a threat that is not as serious as many we have weathered before, many Englishmen and Britons have and still do point this out as a growing concern.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Nonek

[Ineth]

I assume it's the mudbaths that they indulge in that bothered early Muslims.

 

I'm pretty sure Islam just absorbed that rule from Judaism (like many other things), rather than inventing it independently.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I used bacon because both Jews and Muslims regard it as 'unclean', and because that aversion is exactly as arbitrary as whether or not you can draw Muhammed or write the non transliteration of Jehovah or not*. Generally speaking there's also a dichotomy between the two, where deliberately targeting Jewish religious practices is seen as bad while deliberately targeting Muslim ones is seen as 'free speech' and sticking it to the terrists, usually by the same people.

 

Personally I think they're either both free speech or both hate speech. But I'm not going to waste my time worrying about which because either way the idea behind contravening them is just to be offensive and provocative, and is not to make an actual point- it's their right to be a git and they have to assert and protect the right to be a git against the dark night of encroaching lack of gitness, basically. Well yeah. Oddly enough, most people do absolutely fine without asserting their right to be a git and only attention courtesans, psychopaths and the chronically dumb actually revel and feel proud of being one.

 

*I could of course write ____ instead but, meh, I can make the point that I personally think it's silly without rubbing any orthodox type Jews' faces in it for no actual benefit.

 

Having worked on a farm as a lad i've never seen the point of the disdain for swine, they're actually quite clean, tidy and fastidious in their pens. I assume it's the mudbaths that they indulge in that bothered early Muslims.

 

Putting that aside however i've been looking up the organisation that backed this display today, the ADSF or something, they're a nationalist group similar to the English Defence League (National Front by any other name,) and in fact their leader a young lady was barred from entering Britain recently to speak at an EDF rally. It was clearly an incitement and villification but I still say that they are well within their rights to stage it, and would defend their free speech. However to ensure parity I would also stage a display on Islamic history, achievements, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, culture and languages, as well as the cultures that were present before Muhammed came to the mountain.

 

Teach, display and wave in the faces of such people as the previous organisers how much the cradle of civilisation has gifted the world, and how much later civilisation were unknowingly or not influenced by their cultures. As a last resort throw on some Harryhausen Sinbad films and enjoy the tales that entranced many a child of my era. I think this would be a more appropriate response personally.

 

 

Mmm.... a reasonable post from you Nonek and one I agree with, its a strange thing for me to see 

 

Nonek you said earlier that Freedom of Speech is basically a foundation of Western cultures which as you know I support and believe in

 

In the UK  there have been several cases of people being prosecuted  for Twitter comments especially when it comes to racist comments. How do you reconcile this ? Does the UK not believe in free speech because by prosecuting  people who just make Twitter comments isn't this a contradiction to saying "we believe in free speech " ?

 

 

I always strive to be reasonable, rational and moderate, i'm not some one note troll. I truly support free speech, I do not just say so and then suggest we devalue it like an idiot would.

 

As to the recent multiple arrests for online comments, this is a hypocritical and dangerous precedent, millions of equal or worse comments go unpunished, and there is no parity or equality in whom is prosecuted. There are actual laws being broken every day that go unpunished, such as use of prostitution, drug dealing, tax avoidance, and assault, as well as societal problems that should be addressed first such as the working classes growing dependance on food banks to survive, the growing number of suicides amongst young men, and the ghettos that blight once industrious pleasant towns. To target verbal onslaughts above these very real problems is both idiotic and reprehensible, and caters to the fashionable hate culture developing around the virtual world that some choose to support.

 

The United Kingdom has for a long time now been indulging in a steady attack on basic personal liberties and freedoms that were hard fought for and won, under the guise of tightening security against a threat that is not as serious as many we have weathered before, many Englishmen and Britons have and still do point this out as a growing concern.

 

 

But lets focus on my question, are you saying as someone who lives in the UK  " the UK  doesn't support true free speech " ?  

[Nonek]

 

 

Mmm.... a reasonable post from you Nonek and one I agree with, its a strange thing for me to see 

 

Nonek you said earlier that Freedom of Speech is basically a foundation of Western cultures which as you know I support and believe in

 

In the UK  there have been several cases of people being prosecuted  for Twitter comments especially when it comes to racist comments. How do you reconcile this ? Does the UK not believe in free speech because by prosecuting  people who just make Twitter comments isn't this a contradiction to saying "we believe in free speech " ?

 

 

I always strive to be reasonable, rational and moderate, i'm not some one note troll. I truly support free speech, I do not just say so and then suggest we devalue it like an idiot would.

 

As to the recent multiple arrests for online comments, this is a hypocritical and dangerous precedent, millions of equal or worse comments go unpunished, and there is no parity or equality in whom is prosecuted. There are actual laws being broken every day that go unpunished, such as use of prostitution, drug dealing, tax avoidance, and assault, as well as societal problems that should be addressed first such as the working classes growing dependance on food banks to survive, the growing number of suicides amongst young men, and the ghettos that blight once industrious pleasant towns. To target verbal onslaughts above these very real problems is both idiotic and reprehensible, and caters to the fashionable hate culture developing around the virtual world that some choose to support.

 

The United Kingdom has for a long time now been indulging in a steady attack on basic personal liberties and freedoms that were hard fought for and won, under the guise of tightening security against a threat that is not as serious as many we have weathered before, many Englishmen and Britons have and still do point this out as a growing concern.

 

 

But lets focus on my question, are you saying as someone who lives in the UK  " the UK  doesn't support true free speech " ?  

 

 

Read the answer i've already provided, it supports free speech on the whole, but is facing growing challenges from idiots whom want to undermine personal freedoms and foist a nanny state upon us.

 

Why do I have to explain everything twice to you Bruce? It's like debating with a ten year old, you can't really be this stupid can you?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Mmm.... a reasonable post from you Nonek and one I agree with, its a strange thing for me to see 

 

Nonek you said earlier that Freedom of Speech is basically a foundation of Western cultures which as you know I support and believe in

 

In the UK  there have been several cases of people being prosecuted  for Twitter comments especially when it comes to racist comments. How do you reconcile this ? Does the UK not believe in free speech because by prosecuting  people who just make Twitter comments isn't this a contradiction to saying "we believe in free speech " ?

 

 

I always strive to be reasonable, rational and moderate, i'm not some one note troll. I truly support free speech, I do not just say so and then suggest we devalue it like an idiot would.

 

As to the recent multiple arrests for online comments, this is a hypocritical and dangerous precedent, millions of equal or worse comments go unpunished, and there is no parity or equality in whom is prosecuted. There are actual laws being broken every day that go unpunished, such as use of prostitution, drug dealing, tax avoidance, and assault, as well as societal problems that should be addressed first such as the working classes growing dependance on food banks to survive, the growing number of suicides amongst young men, and the ghettos that blight once industrious pleasant towns. To target verbal onslaughts above these very real problems is both idiotic and reprehensible, and caters to the fashionable hate culture developing around the virtual world that some choose to support.

 

The United Kingdom has for a long time now been indulging in a steady attack on basic personal liberties and freedoms that were hard fought for and won, under the guise of tightening security against a threat that is not as serious as many we have weathered before, many Englishmen and Britons have and still do point this out as a growing concern.

 

 

But lets focus on my question, are you saying as someone who lives in the UK  " the UK  doesn't support true free speech " ?  

 

 

Read the answer i've already provided, it supports free speech on the whole, but is facing growing challenges from idiots whom want to undermine personal freedoms and foist a nanny state upon us.

 

Why do I have to explain everything twice to you Bruce? It's like debating with a ten year old, you can't really be this stupid can you?

 

 

Oh no I really am that stupid, you know that by now 

 

But lets leave  the insults for a few minutes and get back to the debate, I thought the principle of  free speech was inviolable ..either you have it as a society or not? We have both agreed that in the UK there have cases of people being prosecuted for expressing free speech..so are you now saying a society can still say it believes in free speech even if it contradicts this by charging people for comments ...like we are seeing in the UK?

 

In the USA I don't know of anyone prosecuted just for Twitter comments ?

[Nonek]

For the third time now i'll explain:

 

I respect and admire the USA for its commitment to free speech and condemn my own country for allowing serious attacks on free speech to be staged. This is not a childish either or situation, there are no simple answers on Earth or under Heaven, except to a simpleton. If you can't understand this i'm afraid that I can't make it any simpler.

 

However with your limited understanding have you ever considered further education? A youngster should be able to understand what I said and recognise a nuanced situation, rather than expecting everything to be compartmentalised in easy to understand pigeonholes. If however you do have a secondary education then I respectfully urge you to see a doctor, due to your having to procure prostitutes to meet women, you may be suffering from undiagnosed syphilis, which often degrades mental acuity in its later stages.

[ravenshrike]

I used bacon because both Jews and Muslims regard it as 'unclean', and because that aversion is exactly as arbitrary as whether or not you can draw Muhammed or write the non transliteration of Jehovah or not*. Generally speaking there's also a dichotomy between the two, where deliberately targeting Jewish religious practices is seen as bad while deliberately targeting Muslim ones is seen as 'free speech' and sticking it to the terrists, usually by the same people.

It's actually not arbitrary. Trichinosis is not something to laugh at even today. While largely eradicated from the US, it is still a problem elsewhere. The Jewish dietary laws were the easy way of limiting food-based illnesses when they were first formulated.

 

 

Addendum - Arguably, it is only within the last 50-100 years that Jewish dietary law conferred no health benefit over standard first world food consumption

Edited May 5, 2015 by ravenshrike

[BruceVC]

For the third time now i'll explain:

 

I respect and admire the USA for its commitment to free speech and condemn my own country for allowing serious attacks on free speech to be staged. This is not a childish either or situation, there are no simple answers on Earth or under Heaven, except to a simpleton. If you can't understand this i'm afraid that I can't make it any simpler.

 

However with your limited understanding have you ever considered further education? A youngster should be able to understand what I said and recognise a nuanced situation, rather than expecting everything to be compartmentalised in easy to understand pigeonholes. If however you do have a secondary education then I respectfully urge you to see a doctor, due to your having to procure prostitutes to meet women, you may be suffering from undiagnosed syphilis, which often degrades mental acuity in its later stages.

 No its still not clear on what you are saying. I keep getting told there is no grey area on free speech, either a country supports it or it doesn't  

 

Yet you admit in the UK  that there have been attacks on free speech and people prosecuted, yet you say this is a nuanced situation?

 

So what is it ..are you simply saying " the UK no longer supports free speech " or are you saying " the UK supports free speech but not in every scenario " 

 

Maybe someone else can explain your point to me because its full of contradictions from where I sit ?

[Nonek]

I give up, if you can't discern a nuanced situation such as free speech being under threat, then I can't educate you. As i've said either go back to school (if you've ever been there) or see a doctor.

 

I'll finish with a song:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxlanfx_91M

Edited May 5, 2015 by Nonek

[Hurlshort]

Just as an aside, the officer in the picture is clearly in his SWAT or other special task force gear.  His equipment is likely because much of Texas is a sprawling desert.  It is likely standard response to an officer involved shooting to send in this type of unit.  I know that if there is a shooting at my school, the response team will look much the same.

 

But yeah, I don't get the Chris Kyle patch.  Maybe the guy served with him?

[Malcador]

Jeez, that cop has far more gear on that he needs. While the appearance of the cop doesn't really matter much for militarization - it's the gun he's carrying - not sure why SWAT officers look like COD fanboys rather than the usual image of guys in dark blue shirts with black tactical gear.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Malcador

[kgambit]

Just as an aside, the officer in the picture is clearly in his SWAT or other special task force gear.  His equipment is likely because much of Texas is a sprawling desert.  It is likely standard response to an officer involved shooting to send in this type of unit.  I know that if there is a shooting at my school, the response team will look much the same.

 

But yeah, I don't get the Chris Kyle patch.  Maybe the guy served with him?

 

There are two names on the patch, Kyle's and Chad Littlefield.   Littlefield never served in the military but was a close friend of Kyle's.  Both were active in helping veterans with PTSD issues. So maybe the patch is simply a tribute to their work with vets.  IDK   

Edited May 5, 2015 by kgambit

[213374U]

Just as an aside, the officer in the picture is clearly in his SWAT or other special task force gear.  His equipment is likely because much of Texas is a sprawling desert.  It is likely standard response to an officer involved shooting to send in this type of unit.  I know that if there is a shooting at my school, the response team will look much the same.

 

But yeah, I don't get the Chris Kyle patch.  Maybe the guy served with him?

And you have absolutely no problem with yahoos that are for all intents and purpose indistinguishable* from spec ops kill teams possibly showing up at school at the first sign of trouble^[1][2][3]? O-kay.

 

 

*except for the huge beer gut trying to break free from the constrains of the tactical vest

 

 

There are two names on the patch, Kyle's and Chad Littlefield.   Littlefield never served in the military but was a close friend of Kyle's.  Both were active in helping veterans with PTSD issues. So maybe the patch is simply a tribute to their work with vets.  IDK

Ah, true. The other guy that was murdered alongside Kyle. Good catch, bonus points for trivia and visual acuity.

Edited May 5, 2015 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

Jeez, that cop has far more gear on that he needs. While the appearance of the cop doesn't really matter much for militarization - it's the gun he's carrying - not sure why SWAT officers look like COD fanboys rather than the usual image of guys in dark blue shirts with black tactical gear.

 

Hey, everything is bigger in Texas!

 

I agree with you for the most part, but again, Texas is a bit different.  If the incident turns into a manhunt across the desert, then all that gear might be needed.  It also explains the desert camo.

[Hurlshort]

 

And you have absolutely no problem with yahoos that are for all intents and purpose indistinguishable from spec ops kill teams* possibly showing up at school at the first sign of trouble^{%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B3%5D}? O-kay.

 

 

*except for the huge beer gut trying to break free from the constrains of the tactical vest

 

 

 

If there is an active shooter situation at my school, I have absolutely no problem with a well-trained SWAT team showing up loaded to bear.  We have practice drills to prepare for precisely that.  

 

Not quite sure what your links have to do with a school lockdown situation.  

[Malcador]

Not too sure they get in chases that really necessitate camo, cops tend to not get involved in S&D missions or something. These cops looking scary and army like is inevitable - they need at least some of that kit, the rifle and comm gear (still think that dude has far too much crap on him), bobbies aren't much help in hostage rescue or a situation with shooters - SWAT was made for a reason.

 

The concern really should be the use of the tool, SWAT in the US seems to get called for crap they're not needed for. But police in general seem to have a problem of valuing nuts over brains 90% of the time.

 

Was looking around as to why they are kitted up so fancy, came across "SWAT want to look cool", so maybe that is it.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

My neighbor is a sheriff, and his kit for going out into the forests to bust drug farms is pretty cool looking.  

 

He still gets poison oak rashes like the rest of us though.

[213374U]

If there is an active shooter situation at my school, I have absolutely no problem with a well-trained SWAT team showing up loaded to bear.  We have practice drills to prepare for precisely that.  

 

Not quite sure what your links have to do with a school lockdown situation.

You broke my precious links. ;C

 

My point is that a) militarized SWAT teams are deployed at the drop of a hat and b) they don't **** around and people often die, not necessarily the bad guys (assuming there are bad guys present at all). If you aren't worried about those two factors combined in a school environment... I don't know what to say to you.

 

If there is a shooter situation at your school, the lockdown protocols themselves are more likely to prevent fatalities than a bunch of trigger-happy Delta wannabes dropping by 10-12 minutes later.

[Malcador]

A heavily militarized police force itching to use gear meant for war zones mixed with the urgency of taking down a heavily armed suspects who is putting lives in danger is a recipe for disaster

While the article is true overall, come on, gear meant for war zones ? Flashbangs and a carbine or SMG ?

 

Always wonder in these Swattings if any officer says "this looks weird." or if they assess the situation beforehand at all.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

 

If there is an active shooter situation at my school, I have absolutely no problem with a well-trained SWAT team showing up loaded to bear.  We have practice drills to prepare for precisely that.  

 

Not quite sure what your links have to do with a school lockdown situation.

You broke my precious links. ;C

 

My point is that a) militarized SWAT teams are deployed at the drop of a hat and b) they don't **** around and people often die, not necessarily the bad guys (assuming there are bad guys present at all). If you aren't worried about those two factors combined in a school environment... I don't know what to say to you.

 

If there is a shooter situation at your school, the lockdown protocols themselves are more likely to prevent fatalities than a bunch of trigger-happy Delta wannabes dropping by 10-12 minutes later.

 

 

Nah it doesn't worry me at all, I would trust the SWAT to do there job...thats what they train for 

 

Also those statistics in your link aren't that bad so I don't see using SWAT as a mistake especially considering the violent  history around brutal attacks on schools in America. I'll trust SWAT  any day over a  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

[Malcador]

Nah it doesn't worry me at all, I would trust the SWAT to do there job...thats what they train for

 

Also those statistics in your link aren't that bad so I don't see using SWAT as a mistake especially considering the violent history around brutal attacks on schools in America. I'll trust SWAT any day over a Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

It's still a valid concern if they are being called for things they are not needed for as well as if the SWAT members are not up to snuff and disciplined, LAPD's is probably one of the best in the US, but some smaller city in Oklahoma may just let any cop wanting to be an Operator in.

 

SWAT is just a weapon, you have to be concerned about how readily that weapon's drawn.

[213374U]

While the article is true overall, come on, gear meant for war zones ? Flashbangs and a carbine or SMG ?

I'm guessing the article refers more to the $4.2bn worth of military aircraft, MRAPs and other hand-me-down hardware.

 

edit: btw, that comes 100% out of tax dollars.

Edited May 5, 2015 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

Nah it doesn't worry me at all, I would trust the SWAT to do there job...thats what they train for

 

Also those statistics in your link aren't that bad so I don't see using SWAT as a mistake especially considering the violent history around brutal attacks on schools in America. I'll trust SWAT any day over a Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

It's still a valid concern if they are being called for things they are not needed for as well as if the SWAT members are not up to snuff and disciplined, LAPD's is probably one of the best in the US, but some smaller city in Oklahoma may just let any cop wanting to be an Operator in.

 

SWAT is just a weapon, you have to be concerned about how readily that weapon's drawn.

 

 

Fair enough, but  I would have assumed the criteria to join SWAT  is stringent? So surly they wouldn't just accept anyone from any police force?

[Hurlshort]

 

If there is an active shooter situation at my school, I have absolutely no problem with a well-trained SWAT team showing up loaded to bear.  We have practice drills to prepare for precisely that.  

 

Not quite sure what your links have to do with a school lockdown situation.

You broke my precious links. ;C

 

My point is that a) militarized SWAT teams are deployed at the drop of a hat and b) they don't **** around and people often die, not necessarily the bad guys (assuming there are bad guys present at all). If you aren't worried about those two factors combined in a school environment... I don't know what to say to you.

 

If there is a shooter situation at your school, the lockdown protocols themselves are more likely to prevent fatalities than a bunch of trigger-happy Delta wannabes dropping by 10-12 minutes later.

 

 

I have major concerns over swatting and how police are trained to handle these types of situations.  I really don't disagree with you, and the way many SWAT teams approach homes is frightening.  It is a murky situation where information is limited.

 

I'm less worried about it in a school environment because both the police and the schools train in order to best protect the students.  The protocols that went into place after Columbine are pretty much as good as they are going to get.