So she fucked up in the privacy end, but I still don't think she failed to address an issue that many people don't know exists. Much like the gun argument (I'm for better controls, btw, before anyone gets up in arms) being injected into this particular case, the privacy of this article is a misdirect from the point I feel she was trying to make.

Sorry, I agree. I hated that article. I have been ranting about it for days. She took her own son's relatively typical lashing out behavior and turned it into a pity party. Even worse, she exploited her son. Also, you should see her blog. The entire fucking thing is about how she and her husband fight over the kids and how much she hates him. She should get off her fucking blog and try to correct the wrongs she and her ex husband have done to their children. Fucking moron, that woman. There is even a blog post ranting about how people shouldn't have kids because her teenager won't clean his room.

(December 19, 2012 at 11:35 am)Minimalist Wrote: But even the Post is guilty of ignoring the rest of the problem. There is something about this country - or this people - which makes us different from the rest of the civilized world and we had damn well better start to figure out what it is.

It could be the country's domination by the military-industrial complex and the subsequent glorification of warriors and conquest which pervades American culture. The fact that we are held in thrall by a religion which glorifies warriors and conquest maybe doesn't help. Both are (nowadays, at least) pretty unique to America in the west, and it's no coincidence that both of these traits are incestuously inseparable in America.

If we embrace a warrior culture, we should not be surprised when blood spills at home. Changing this would solve a lot of the problems, though obviously that's not happening tomorrow.

You just described Sparta. I'm cool with that.

(December 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 11:35 am)Minimalist Wrote: But even the Post is guilty of ignoring the rest of the problem. There is something about this country - or this people - which makes us different from the rest of the civilized world and we had damn well better start to figure out what it is.

It could be the country's domination by the military-industrial complex and the subsequent glorification of warriors and conquest which pervades American culture. The fact that we are held in thrall by a religion which glorifies warriors and conquest maybe doesn't help. Both are (nowadays, at least) pretty unique to America in the west, and it's no coincidence that both of these traits are incestuously inseparable in America.

If we embrace a warrior culture, we should not be surprised when blood spills at home. Changing this would solve a lot of the problems, though obviously that's not happening tomorrow.

I agree, but the real issue be it "warrior culture" or "honor culture" you still have BIG MONEY fueling both open market and closed market. Money equals power and all you have to do is sell a motif that appeals to a majority and you have instant lemmings.

China's communist party has the same thing in common with Iran's theocracy, and Saudi Arabia's oil monopoly, and corporate America's class monopoly. Sell an idea to distract from the fact it still amounts to a power struggle. Anti monopoly concepts are the only way to cure any of these problems.

Quote:It could be the country's domination by the military-industrial complex and the subsequent glorification of warriors and conquest which pervades American culture

There have been plenty of nations with a warrior culture though and they did not spend their time slaughtering each other. Voltaire even called Prussia "an army with a state." Still, it is difficult to commit a mass murder with a musket...which the Founding Fathers understood but seems to be lost on the modern gun nut culture.

(December 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: which the Founding Fathers understood but seems to be lost on the modern gun nut culture.

Quote them saying that, Min. Both sides of this debate interpret the Constitution like the freaking Christians interpret the Bible. I'm pretty sure we can just take it as it stands. It's one thing to advocate change and another to just interpret things so they suit you. Both sides do it. It's annoying.

(December 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: which the Founding Fathers understood but seems to be lost on the modern gun nut culture.

Quote them saying that, Min. Both sides of this debate interpret the Constitution like the freaking Christians interpret the Bible. I'm pretty sure we can just take it as it stands. It's one thing to advocate change and another to just interpret things so they suit you. Both sides do it. It's annoying.

I hope your argument isn't "both sides disagree and use tactics to gain an advantage, so we shouldn't do anything".

I really hope that isn't your argument because 26 people who are dead, if alive, I am sure would say "fuck it, what can you do". And that also isn't including the 32 people who will die in the next 24 hours due to gun use.

Life sucks, life is hard so "fuck it" lets not try.

(December 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I hope your argument isn't "both sides disagree and use tactics to gain an advantage, so we shouldn't do anything".

I really hope that isn't your argument because 26 people who are dead, if alive, I am sure would say "fuck it, what can you do". And that also isn't including the 32 people who will die in the next 24 hours due to gun use.

Life sucks, life is hard so "fuck it" lets not try.

That is the most histrionic inference I have ever seen. Firstly, a fuck load more than just 26 people are dead thanks to all kinds of murder weapons in the hands of bad people. My comment has absolutely nothing to do with any of them. When I argue the finer points of someone else's argument, I don't have some crazy supressed motive that can fill an entire paragraph. What I am saying is right there -- no more, no less. I'm not even fucking saying I disagree with anyone. I am saying that both sides use personal interpretations as arguments. The fact that it is currently irrelevant how you interpret the amendment and only relevant what is written clear as day, makes it wasted effort. I have seen you getting all fucking hopped up about gun control. I sit somewhere in the middle on the topic, so you can spare me, please. I honestly do not mean to offend you, but you are clearly emotional on the topic and I do not wish to get into yet another, "I'm so angry about it and I am going to attribute all the things I am angry about to you." conversation on this forum.