|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 24 2018 02:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:22 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:16 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:01 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 01:43 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Expressing sympathy isn’t supposed to do anything. It’s a brief response in the moment. It ends there though, it never goes beyond 'thoughts and prayers' to fix the actual problem Edit: Also, sympathy does not mean shit without action. You're not really sympathetic without at least trying to help. I really hope you're just blowing off steam here. Expressing sympathy can be honest and intentioned to comfort. Some random blowhard on the internet that doesn't like your future efforts to express compassion (say: you should support gun control if you're truly sympathetic) does not change it. You leave yourself wide open to accusations that you employ tragedies to pursue your favored political agenda by shaming and guilting fellow citizens. Be better. No, if you go 'thoughts and prayers' and leave it there you are not sympathetic. The idea does not have to be gun control, hell people go we should have armed guards at schools to prevent these things( I disagree with this idea but at least its a fucking idea that can be debated). You are not really sympathetic to a problem if you are not trying to help in some way. This applies to my life as well. I don't consider myself really sympathetic to a lot of problems because I don't actually care to help in anyway. Thinking a situation is bad is not being sympathetic Sympathy is a human emotion. You show pity and sorrow with words. You are a very callous and ignorant man to suggest the sympathy is faulty, because you stand in judgment of policy debate afterwards. Maybe they don't make a big show of giving afterwards, or talking about community support systems, or at-risk teen programs ... because their job isn't to prove to you their sympathy is genuine by putting on a public show for the nasty sort of people that have Puritanical urges. I don't really care what random joe does on the street after a shooting, I care what my politician does because holy shit that is the job of the american people to judge what our politicians are doing! Also, go back and look at my edit from the post you quoted because it might change what we talk about No, you’re judging that a non-political solution is not proper sympathy, now changed to empathy (still a human emotion, sharing the feelings in the wake of a tragedy in this case). That’s judgement. And it’s faulty thinking that I hope you have better sense of in real life instead of outrage and staking opinions on the internet. You sit in judgement of sympathy and empathy in the wake of a tragedy because you demand a political response angle. Disgusting.
I demand a response that might stop things like this in the future, I truly am human garbage
|
On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy.
I think the main frustration comes when people who say there is no real solution demand that events like this not be used as a reason to seek a solution. They don't see a solution, but want to control the venue and topic of discussion at the same time.
|
On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy.
But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening?
|
On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer?
See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate.
|
On January 24 2018 02:34 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:31 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:22 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:16 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:01 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 01:43 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
Expressing sympathy isn’t supposed to do anything. It’s a brief response in the moment. It ends there though, it never goes beyond 'thoughts and prayers' to fix the actual problem Edit: Also, sympathy does not mean shit without action. You're not really sympathetic without at least trying to help. I really hope you're just blowing off steam here. Expressing sympathy can be honest and intentioned to comfort. Some random blowhard on the internet that doesn't like your future efforts to express compassion (say: you should support gun control if you're truly sympathetic) does not change it. You leave yourself wide open to accusations that you employ tragedies to pursue your favored political agenda by shaming and guilting fellow citizens. Be better. No, if you go 'thoughts and prayers' and leave it there you are not sympathetic. The idea does not have to be gun control, hell people go we should have armed guards at schools to prevent these things( I disagree with this idea but at least its a fucking idea that can be debated). You are not really sympathetic to a problem if you are not trying to help in some way. This applies to my life as well. I don't consider myself really sympathetic to a lot of problems because I don't actually care to help in anyway. Thinking a situation is bad is not being sympathetic Sympathy is a human emotion. You show pity and sorrow with words. You are a very callous and ignorant man to suggest the sympathy is faulty, because you stand in judgment of policy debate afterwards. Maybe they don't make a big show of giving afterwards, or talking about community support systems, or at-risk teen programs ... because their job isn't to prove to you their sympathy is genuine by putting on a public show for the nasty sort of people that have Puritanical urges. I don't really care what random joe does on the street after a shooting, I care what my politician does because holy shit that is the job of the american people to judge what our politicians are doing! Also, go back and look at my edit from the post you quoted because it might change what we talk about No, you’re judging that a non-political solution is not proper sympathy, now changed to empathy (still a human emotion, sharing the feelings in the wake of a tragedy in this case). That’s judgement. And it’s faulty thinking that I hope you have better sense of in real life instead of outrage and staking opinions on the internet. You sit in judgement of sympathy and empathy in the wake of a tragedy because you demand a political response angle. Disgusting. I demand a response that might stop things like this in the future, I truly am human garbage
Demanding a response is different than going on the attack for human emotions. I’ll find your twin on the_Donald who says you don’t truly have sympathy for victims of Nice or London attacks because politicians are not addressing Islamic terrorism. You both are reprehensible for doing it, but I see now you didn’t mean to put it how you put it.
|
On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate.
I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up.
|
On January 24 2018 02:51 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate. I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up.
Contrary to Dangle's patronizing bullshit, your point is well taken and I'm sure many here agree with it wholeheartedly.
|
United States43675 Posts
On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening?
Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions.
If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash.
|
On January 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate. I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up. Contrary to Dangle's patronizing bullshit, your point is well taken and I'm sure many here agree with it wholeheartedly.
I think I represented myself poorly at the start and he went off of that, that is not his fault for me not wording my opinions correctly to illustrate my point.
Notice he is responding much differently when my position was clearer.
Just to cut him some slack 
|
On January 24 2018 02:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening? Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions. If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash.
Damn it Kwark, why the fuck are you giving situations that prove my earlier thoughts wrong. Wtf man, I thought we were buddies here
|
On January 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate. I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up. Contrary to Dangle's patronizing bullshit, your point is well taken and I'm sure many here agree with it wholeheartedly.
We are all underestimating the power of thoughts and prayers here.
|
On January 24 2018 02:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2018 02:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate. I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up. Contrary to Dangle's patronizing bullshit, your point is well taken and I'm sure many here agree with it wholeheartedly. We are all underestimating the power of thoughts and prayers here.
One might say Jesus himself was guilty of such a crime :D
|
United States43675 Posts
On January 24 2018 02:58 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:55 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening? Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions. If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash. Damn it Kwark, why the fuck are you giving situations that prove my earlier thoughts wrong. Wtf man, I thought we were buddies here
None of what I've argued means that you can't attack people for their fucked up priorities.
Let's say it's a seriously cold night and a homeless guy asks you to drive them to a nearby shelter. If you say "I'm sorry you're gonna die tonight but I've got a Project Runway marathon planned for tonight and I'm already behind schedule", well, that can be totally genuine and not hypocritical. They really can view the guy freezing to death as unfortunate but necessary. However, that does not give them a free pass on whatever fucked up ethics system they're using.
We shouldn't be attacking them for expressing regret and then doing nothing, that's the rational outcome of the cost benefit calculation they're using. We should be attacking them for the inputs they're putting into that calculation and the fact that they're weighting them the way they are.
The Project Runway marathon guy can be genuinely sorry that the homeless guy will freeze to death and also be an asshole.
|
On January 24 2018 02:58 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:55 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening? Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions. If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash. Damn it Kwark, why the fuck are you giving situations that prove my earlier thoughts wrong. Wtf man, I thought we were buddies here
When I worked in probation and felt sorry for a lot of the people coming through there. But my role wasn’t to assist them, even if I felt what was happening was unfair(which was pretty rare). Some jobs require us to oversee things we disagree with. But our role in that job is not the venue to effect change, otherwise is undermines the entire process.
Edit: Kwark - breaking down that an expression of sorrow does not absolve you of guilt, while also creating a truly unforgivable fictional person.
|
On January 24 2018 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:58 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:55 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening? Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions. If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash. Damn it Kwark, why the fuck are you giving situations that prove my earlier thoughts wrong. Wtf man, I thought we were buddies here None of what I've argued means that you can't attack people for their fucked up priorities. Let's say it's a seriously cold night and a homeless guy asks you to drive them to a nearby shelter. If you say "I'm sorry you're gonna die tonight but I've got a Project Runway marathon planned for tonight and I'm already behind schedule", well, that can be totally genuine and not hypocritical. They really can view the guy freezing to death as unfortunate but necessary. However, that does not give them a free pass on whatever fucked up ethics system they're using. We shouldn't be attacking them for expressing regret and then doing nothing, that's the rational outcome of the cost benefit calculation they're using. We should be attacking them for the inputs they're putting into that calculation and the fact that they're weighting them the way they are. The Project Runway marathon guy can be genuinely sorry that the homeless guy will freeze to death and also be an asshole.
Oh I agree, but I was being absolute in my thinking and clearly I can't be
|
Isn't part of the problem that the politicians can't really do anything because of the power of the NRA? I'm under the impression that they're immensely powerful regardless of party.
I don't think any US politicians aren't sympathetic, I think they feel they can't do anything. I seem to recall President Obama sounding increasingly defeated when he addressed the nation about these matters, as he realised he didn't really have the power to do much about gun violence despite his intent.
Even Trump is probably sympathetic. He just most likely believes the solution is to have Rambo on every street corner and in every classroom.
|
On January 24 2018 03:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:59 IgnE wrote:On January 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:On January 24 2018 02:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On January 24 2018 02:27 IyMoon wrote:
Lets re-frame what we are talking about Danglars, I think we are both misunderstanding each other.
I dislike when a politician goes 'thoughts and prayers' and I find it a useless gesture. A politician expressing sympathy without moving to change things is useless in my opinion. I don't judge a random person who does the same in the same way I judge a person in power.
Does this make my position clearer? See this is much better. You politically want a political solution in your judgement of responses, and then blame politicians. That’s on a second level beyond “x politician expressed his sympathies using words in the wake of a tragedy” even if the phrasing is a bit trite in this day and age. You err when you declare sympathy/empathy to be ungenuine because you demand political action. He’s politically useless according to your perspective on government policies dealing with school shootings. That part is clear and accurate. I want a solution that only politicians can deliver. Wanting any solution to large scale things in the US means you want a political solution because those are the only solutions we have. A governor has a ton of power that he can use to put pressure on senators and representatives to get things passed. Just because he is not the top of the food chain to a national solution does not resolve him of responsibility and does not excuse his use of 'thoughts and prayers' with no follow up. Contrary to Dangle's patronizing bullshit, your point is well taken and I'm sure many here agree with it wholeheartedly. We are all underestimating the power of thoughts and prayers here. One might say Jesus himself was guilty of such a crime :D
I remember him saying something....
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, on the street corners, and on twitter to be seen by others."
That's the one.
Anyway, the politicians feel a lot worse about having to deal with the questions than they care about the dead people so I say it's perfectly appropriate to respond with anger and disappointment to the empty platitudes of "thoughts and prayers".
|
On January 24 2018 03:24 iamthedave wrote:
Isn't part of the problem that the politicians can't really do anything because of the power of the NRA? I'm under the impression that they're immensely powerful regardless of party.
I don't think any US politicians aren't sympathetic, I think they feel they can't do anything. I seem to recall President Obama sounding increasingly defeated when he addressed the nation about these matters, as he realised he didn't really have the power to do much about gun violence despite his intent.
Even Trump is probably sympathetic. He just most likely believes the solution is to have Rambo on every street corner and in every classroom.
well, some people think thta what the politicians should do is: do the right thing, then lose an election because they did the right thing.
and they most certainly could do something, it'd just hurt their careers.
|
On January 24 2018 03:24 iamthedave wrote:
Isn't part of the problem that the politicians can't really do anything because of the power of the NRA? I'm under the impression that they're immensely powerful regardless of party.
I don't think any US politicians aren't sympathetic, I think they feel they can't do anything. I seem to recall President Obama sounding increasingly defeated when he addressed the nation about these matters, as he realised he didn't really have the power to do much about gun violence despite his intent.
Even Trump is probably sympathetic. He just most likely believes the solution is to have Rambo on every street corner and in every classroom.
NRA is as powerful as its members. If you move an inch toward gun control they tend to phone you a lot and agressively. That being said it only excuses the politicians to a point, there are specific gun control policies that are favored by over 50% of NRA members (I don't remember it off the top of my head so I'm going to go with over 50% to play it safe) and they still can't pass into law, and now we're into the receiving money territory, where you are allowed to put pressure on me not because you are immensely powerful, but because I like that you give me all of the monies. And then suddenly all of that sympathy for the strong-armed politicians ends up misplaced.
|
On January 24 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2018 02:58 IyMoon wrote:On January 24 2018 02:55 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2018 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:On January 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
I think the view "school shootings are unfortunate but if the price of fixing them is changing the second amendment and attacking American gun culture then we should endure the shootings" is reasonable. I disagree with it, but it's reasonable.
With that in mind, I think it's okay to say that you're sorry that a thing happened while also not fixing it. If you weren't fixing it out of apathy that would be one thing, but not fixing it because you believe the fix is worse than the current problem is fine. I don't see the issue with "I'm sorry X happened, I wish it hadn't happened" while allowing it to happen.
I think a classic example of this is war. If you believe a war is necessary you can simultaneously embrace the likelihood for casualties while regretting the specific reality of casualties without hypocrisy. But since a person with this view is ok with the situation and made a conscious choice not to stop it, can they really be sorry for it happening? Yes. Sometimes things don't have solutions. If someone I knew was in a car crash I would express my sympathy. However I accept that car accidents are a likely outcome of using cars and I think that cars are overall a beneficial technology. I think that the totality of cars within society, which includes the subset of potential car accidents within society, is an overall good. However, I'd still rather they hadn't gotten into a car crash. Damn it Kwark, why the fuck are you giving situations that prove my earlier thoughts wrong. Wtf man, I thought we were buddies here When I worked in probation and felt sorry for a lot of the people coming through there. But my role wasn’t to assist them, even if I felt what was happening was unfair(which was pretty rare). Some jobs require us to oversee things we disagree with. But our role in that job is not the venue to effect change, otherwise is undermines the entire process.Edit: Kwark - breaking down that an expression of sorrow does not absolve you of guilt, while also creating a truly unforgivable fictional person.
This was probably said during slavery or the holocaust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
