mass shooting at movie theatre in Aurora,Colorado
- Thread starter J.LOTTO
- Start date
Classic :H: post
So this is a matter of you truly not understanding even though you claimed to have understanding.
Again, something is Malum in se if it is INHERENTLY WRONG (or evil.) I've typed that at least once now and I've bolded it so you pay attention to it. Again, if something is inherently wrong it will fall under this classification. Murder, rape, stealing, etc. Something is Malum prohibitum if it is PROHIBITED by way of STATUTE or some other type of legislation or law making. Examples of this are speed limits of 25 miles, jay walking, burning trash without the proper permit, etc. Stop worrying about the OUTCOME. Be more concerned with how the law is/was established and/or applied and interpreted than the outcome at this point.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Malum+in+se
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malum prohibitum
This question is quite useless.
See above. However, I believe people who knowingly infect others should face more severe charges such as attempted murder.
You aren't making any sense right now. Something is wrong because it is wrong within itself/inherently wrong or because there is a statute stating it is wrong. It can’t be made any simpler than this.
Listen, what you strongly believe is really of no concern to me. I don't care if you, I, my mother, the birds outside of my window or Santa fuckin' Clause say's it is wrong. Drunk driving is wrong because there are STATUTES which say they are wrong and those statutes depend on the fact that we have cars, people drink and people drive them. If there are no cars or liquor would you need a drunken driving statute?
More absurdities. First off, if you're going to tell me about some fantastic article cite your source. Secondly, I'm not saying drunk driving isn't bad. What I am saying is that the reason you have drunk driving laws is because statutes were created not because it is inherently wrong to drive drunk.
It's more than outlandish.
Clearly we aren't.
You aren't making sense. Here you are talking about what you "believe" then you start telling me about some wacky idea about me arguing my personal opinion that I don't think DUI is wrong. DUI is not inherently wrong. It is wrong because we have statutes saying it is wrong. Since it is not inherently wrong, it falls under Malum prohibitum.
Did you not say, "Maybe im not understanding what you are saying, but the way i see it is that you are stating a "human opinion" and using third world countries as support for your opinion?" How are you not sure about what I think you are misunderstanding when I quoted you and specifically addressed your misunderstanding?
Once again you aren't making any sense. You just said "I dont think I ever said your idea was a "third world idea" then you say "I just stated that you are using third world countries/ideals to support your idea." Do you not see the contradiction?
Again, you keep talking about "civilized societies" yet you've provided no explanation of what such a thing is. I mentioned “civilized” initially because I wanted to head off this type of argument.
I mentioned it so others could get a better understanding. What exactly is your reason for talking about it?
Red herring.
I have plenty of examples, but the fact you keep typing such tomfoolery and telling me what you have a hard time believing gets the door slammed in your face. At this point, my advice to you is to take two American history courses (colleges offer two types based on time period) and two types of criminal justice courses (one devoted to origin/common law and one devoted to modern law.)
I had to edit this to be less intense...I'm gonna let this one slide.
Less typing. More reading.
You just lost your entire premise. This exchange can actually end now but I'll keep going.
In many places they aren't crimes of war. In many theocratic societies they are accepted and relied on. "Wider scale" needs to be defined (by you), but, due to your shenanigans and being Doubting Thomas, instead of just asking for the info when I already told Dfresh I would give him ISBN's (which I offered and he never asked for), you're SOL.
Huh?
Listen, I can only speak for MYSELF and what I understand. When it comes to what "we all understand" I don't put ANY stock in "we."
Circle talk. http://thesaurus.com/browse/universal+agreement
Asking you to provide a universally agreed on definition of society is not asking a leading question. It was not followed by my answer of yes/no nor was it suggestive. In the future, if you don’t know what a term means DON’T use it.
Red herring.
What would lead you to form this assessment?
To remind you, you're the one who claims he understands it but CLEARLY does not. I mentioned it because Dfresh compared two crimes that were not similar.
You need to clarify this sentence because it’s convoluted. Rephrase and ask again.
Again, how can you tell anyone what is shared by the majority of people in a modern civilized society when you haven't defined what it is? Ok, so now you say "America" but what exactly does that mean? America provides 60% of the worlds arms, America has the highest incarceration rate, wastes more resources than any other country, etc? What makes America "civilized?" Moreover, why are you attempting to argue a “case” pertaining to the wide spread application of shared culpability when you stated that we agree that it is not a commonly accepted idea?
In reference to "all it would take" you need to read what I wrote and then backtrack and read what I was replying to. Do this and you'll have a better understanding.
Again, all you need is a CATALYST. Just like 9-11 was a catalyst for more airport security, just like gang violence and drug wars were a catalyst to remove assault weapons from the hands of citizens. Do you know what a catalyst is? If not google the term then when you've read brush up on Hegelian dialectic examples/processes.
So get to your goddamn point because I'm actually tired of wasting my time here.
You're a selective reader. R-E-A-D the BOLDED question. Do you see another example in there?
We aren't butting heads. Trust me on that one.
It's simple. It's something humans believe, revere, enforce, concoct, etc that is not restricted or confined to one specific culture or group. It can be defined as universal, common, etc. Third world was introduced to head off the "no one in the world does this" argument. With that being said, go back and read the conversation from the start. (The initial statement was made with people like you in mind.)
Your "above" does not address the question presented. Again, we employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes?
Word-jugglery. Listen, I don’t know what great rock of rhetoric you crawled from under but I know when people are implying something is incorrect, false, etc. Save it. According to you, you don’t have ANY knowledge of the topic yet you HIGHLY DOUBT what I was initially going to provide the other poster with? LOL! You need to brush up on logical fallacies and bias.
So far, you have not shown that you have knowledge pertaining to what we're discussing, have openly refused to answer questions and so you can't rely on an appeal from authority position. Moreover, your logic would simply be rooted in confirmation bias. Your statement was illogical from the start so there is nothing I can add to it that will change this.
The thing is, I was going to provide the relevant information until you came in trying to circumvent the flow of information and thread. In the future, don’t do that with me. It’s a QUICK way to get the door slammed in your face and for me to be like, “Fuck this nigga over here.” Most of the board’s vets can tell you this is NOT the way to get info from me. It’s ok to doubt, being a skeptic and critical of information is encouraged, but if you’re going to word it the way you do, which I rightfully interpreted as slick, off the cuff and with a tad bit of sarcasm, I say fuck it. I understand argument, rhetoric, persuasion and critical thought, so when you WILLINGLY type the shit you do, I know EXACTLY where you are coming from.
What argument? I can tell you right now old school members like seeing this shit. This isn’t an argument, no, not by a long shot.
Before you opened your mouth I was going to post 8 links (in my favs) and 4 ISBN’s (along with specific page numbers and chapters) to enlighten the readers. So why am I sitting around with this type of info anyway? I’ve explained that to the board in the past and will explain further in this post.
Not only does the information have compare and contrast different countries, it shows how lack of enforcement (and in some cases enforcement) can be linked to institutional deviance, poverty, corruption, bias and other factors. Many ideas are introduced and in many cases the evidence supporting correlations was provided.
I have two different criminal justice degrees (graduated with highest honors with a 3.79 gpa) and currently attend UC Berkeley (school of letters) and may apply to their law school (Boalt Hall) at a later date (after I finish up these music projects and finish my work at the school of letters.) Anything else?
As the days go by the body count rises. We’ve thrown serious money at research devoted to predisposition and the insane (which is a legal term, btw) but the results are dubious. At this point, what needs to happen is extreme measures reflecting the individuals crime and making them a victim (or threatening to make them one) should be used. You kill 12 people? You rig a home with explosives? We go get your momma, we make her open the door. We go get your little sister and we make her open the door. We let the family members of the deceased beat the shit out of you for a limited time period. You do this and crime will see a decrease. I’m not saying it will disappear, it won’t, but hella people would be noid to do shit because now they know if they get caught it’s not just coming back on them. Extreme? Yes, but it’s time we go there. If not, you’ll have more fools killin over and over and hippie ass niggas protestin’ the needle and chair.
You are getting the “:H:” treatment. Do not take it personal. Just take it as getting your wings or drivers license or membership to an exclusive club.
No problem.
So this is a matter of you truly not understanding even though you claimed to have understanding.
Again, something is Malum in se if it is INHERENTLY WRONG (or evil.) I've typed that at least once now and I've bolded it so you pay attention to it. Again, if something is inherently wrong it will fall under this classification. Murder, rape, stealing, etc. Something is Malum prohibitum if it is PROHIBITED by way of STATUTE or some other type of legislation or law making. Examples of this are speed limits of 25 miles, jay walking, burning trash without the proper permit, etc. Stop worrying about the OUTCOME. Be more concerned with how the law is/was established and/or applied and interpreted than the outcome at this point.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Malum+in+se
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malum prohibitum
This question is quite useless.
See above. However, I believe people who knowingly infect others should face more severe charges such as attempted murder.
You aren't making any sense right now. Something is wrong because it is wrong within itself/inherently wrong or because there is a statute stating it is wrong. It can’t be made any simpler than this.
Listen, what you strongly believe is really of no concern to me. I don't care if you, I, my mother, the birds outside of my window or Santa fuckin' Clause say's it is wrong. Drunk driving is wrong because there are STATUTES which say they are wrong and those statutes depend on the fact that we have cars, people drink and people drive them. If there are no cars or liquor would you need a drunken driving statute?
More absurdities. First off, if you're going to tell me about some fantastic article cite your source. Secondly, I'm not saying drunk driving isn't bad. What I am saying is that the reason you have drunk driving laws is because statutes were created not because it is inherently wrong to drive drunk.
It's more than outlandish.
Clearly we aren't.
You aren't making sense. Here you are talking about what you "believe" then you start telling me about some wacky idea about me arguing my personal opinion that I don't think DUI is wrong. DUI is not inherently wrong. It is wrong because we have statutes saying it is wrong. Since it is not inherently wrong, it falls under Malum prohibitum.
Did you not say, "Maybe im not understanding what you are saying, but the way i see it is that you are stating a "human opinion" and using third world countries as support for your opinion?" How are you not sure about what I think you are misunderstanding when I quoted you and specifically addressed your misunderstanding?
Once again you aren't making any sense. You just said "I dont think I ever said your idea was a "third world idea" then you say "I just stated that you are using third world countries/ideals to support your idea." Do you not see the contradiction?
Again, you keep talking about "civilized societies" yet you've provided no explanation of what such a thing is. I mentioned “civilized” initially because I wanted to head off this type of argument.
I mentioned it so others could get a better understanding. What exactly is your reason for talking about it?
Red herring.
I have plenty of examples, but the fact you keep typing such tomfoolery and telling me what you have a hard time believing gets the door slammed in your face. At this point, my advice to you is to take two American history courses (colleges offer two types based on time period) and two types of criminal justice courses (one devoted to origin/common law and one devoted to modern law.)
I had to edit this to be less intense...I'm gonna let this one slide.
Less typing. More reading.
You just lost your entire premise. This exchange can actually end now but I'll keep going.
In many places they aren't crimes of war. In many theocratic societies they are accepted and relied on. "Wider scale" needs to be defined (by you), but, due to your shenanigans and being Doubting Thomas, instead of just asking for the info when I already told Dfresh I would give him ISBN's (which I offered and he never asked for), you're SOL.
Huh?
Listen, I can only speak for MYSELF and what I understand. When it comes to what "we all understand" I don't put ANY stock in "we."
Circle talk. http://thesaurus.com/browse/universal+agreement
Asking you to provide a universally agreed on definition of society is not asking a leading question. It was not followed by my answer of yes/no nor was it suggestive. In the future, if you don’t know what a term means DON’T use it.
Red herring.
What would lead you to form this assessment?
To remind you, you're the one who claims he understands it but CLEARLY does not. I mentioned it because Dfresh compared two crimes that were not similar.
You need to clarify this sentence because it’s convoluted. Rephrase and ask again.
Again, how can you tell anyone what is shared by the majority of people in a modern civilized society when you haven't defined what it is? Ok, so now you say "America" but what exactly does that mean? America provides 60% of the worlds arms, America has the highest incarceration rate, wastes more resources than any other country, etc? What makes America "civilized?" Moreover, why are you attempting to argue a “case” pertaining to the wide spread application of shared culpability when you stated that we agree that it is not a commonly accepted idea?
In reference to "all it would take" you need to read what I wrote and then backtrack and read what I was replying to. Do this and you'll have a better understanding.
Again, all you need is a CATALYST. Just like 9-11 was a catalyst for more airport security, just like gang violence and drug wars were a catalyst to remove assault weapons from the hands of citizens. Do you know what a catalyst is? If not google the term then when you've read brush up on Hegelian dialectic examples/processes.
So get to your goddamn point because I'm actually tired of wasting my time here.
You're a selective reader. R-E-A-D the BOLDED question. Do you see another example in there?
We aren't butting heads. Trust me on that one.
It's simple. It's something humans believe, revere, enforce, concoct, etc that is not restricted or confined to one specific culture or group. It can be defined as universal, common, etc. Third world was introduced to head off the "no one in the world does this" argument. With that being said, go back and read the conversation from the start. (The initial statement was made with people like you in mind.)
Your "above" does not address the question presented. Again, we employ such tactics in times of war against so-called enemies so why should we refrain from utilizing extreme methods on citizens who do heinous crimes?
Word-jugglery. Listen, I don’t know what great rock of rhetoric you crawled from under but I know when people are implying something is incorrect, false, etc. Save it. According to you, you don’t have ANY knowledge of the topic yet you HIGHLY DOUBT what I was initially going to provide the other poster with? LOL! You need to brush up on logical fallacies and bias.
So far, you have not shown that you have knowledge pertaining to what we're discussing, have openly refused to answer questions and so you can't rely on an appeal from authority position. Moreover, your logic would simply be rooted in confirmation bias. Your statement was illogical from the start so there is nothing I can add to it that will change this.
The thing is, I was going to provide the relevant information until you came in trying to circumvent the flow of information and thread. In the future, don’t do that with me. It’s a QUICK way to get the door slammed in your face and for me to be like, “Fuck this nigga over here.” Most of the board’s vets can tell you this is NOT the way to get info from me. It’s ok to doubt, being a skeptic and critical of information is encouraged, but if you’re going to word it the way you do, which I rightfully interpreted as slick, off the cuff and with a tad bit of sarcasm, I say fuck it. I understand argument, rhetoric, persuasion and critical thought, so when you WILLINGLY type the shit you do, I know EXACTLY where you are coming from.
What argument? I can tell you right now old school members like seeing this shit. This isn’t an argument, no, not by a long shot.
Before you opened your mouth I was going to post 8 links (in my favs) and 4 ISBN’s (along with specific page numbers and chapters) to enlighten the readers. So why am I sitting around with this type of info anyway? I’ve explained that to the board in the past and will explain further in this post.
Not only does the information have compare and contrast different countries, it shows how lack of enforcement (and in some cases enforcement) can be linked to institutional deviance, poverty, corruption, bias and other factors. Many ideas are introduced and in many cases the evidence supporting correlations was provided.
I have two different criminal justice degrees (graduated with highest honors with a 3.79 gpa) and currently attend UC Berkeley (school of letters) and may apply to their law school (Boalt Hall) at a later date (after I finish up these music projects and finish my work at the school of letters.) Anything else?
As the days go by the body count rises. We’ve thrown serious money at research devoted to predisposition and the insane (which is a legal term, btw) but the results are dubious. At this point, what needs to happen is extreme measures reflecting the individuals crime and making them a victim (or threatening to make them one) should be used. You kill 12 people? You rig a home with explosives? We go get your momma, we make her open the door. We go get your little sister and we make her open the door. We let the family members of the deceased beat the shit out of you for a limited time period. You do this and crime will see a decrease. I’m not saying it will disappear, it won’t, but hella people would be noid to do shit because now they know if they get caught it’s not just coming back on them. Extreme? Yes, but it’s time we go there. If not, you’ll have more fools killin over and over and hippie ass niggas protestin’ the needle and chair.
You are getting the “:H:” treatment. Do not take it personal. Just take it as getting your wings or drivers license or membership to an exclusive club.
No problem.
Buster Douglas Jr said nothing about seeing two shooters. As for the guy at the end, the audio is not synced. I can have that guy saying HERESY RULES THE WORLD by stripping the clip and editing in Pro Tools. I can record me saying there was NEVER a shooter, add some foley/sound fx and make it seem like I was there.
What I will do, however, is DL the audio file, play it in my daws (reaper and pro tools) just to see whats goin on.
What I will do, however, is DL the audio file, play it in my daws (reaper and pro tools) just to see whats goin on.
F
@fatbonghit
probably hates
@MR. TYPCEE
's posts.
@MR. TYPCEE
's posts.
sorry i posted the right guy but wrong video
hmmm interesting same guy is also an actor
http://www.modelmayhem.com/1573040#
heres a few more initial reports saying multiple suspects
theres alot more to this just keep searching
