Conquer Club

So with yet another incident of homegrown terrorism claiming lives, the media is once again rallying the flag to stop the violence. So how do we do this? I mean they could be anyone! They are among us and we don't know who they are, right? So, what can we do?
Blah blah Guns?
Blah blah Mental Help?
Blah blah Rehashed Retoric?

Well, the thing is, it seems we kind of do know exactly who these people are. The FBI was watching this terrorist already, and they were in fact watching many many other terrorists before they ever acted. I mean it's not even subtle, these people are using social media to chat with ISIS. So, KNOWING these people are publicly treasonous and violently insane, is there nothing we can do?

Yes, I know, first amendment, innocent until proven guilty, so on. These are concepts we founded America on, though honestly, how hard do we enforce these values when they're not in our favor? Japanese Americans were rounded up for "national security" and the government is blowing up foreigners with flying terminators. Is it too much to ask that the government at least does something if you're retweeting all of Jihad24/7's latest insights, or friending half the no-fly list?

I mean at the very freaking least, ban ISIS members from making accounts on these sites.

perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!

Some perspective:

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.

Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?

The government job is not to protect you. It's there to enforce the law. It's the political correctness that's the problem.

warmonger1981 wrote:The government job is not to protect you. It's there to enforce the law. It's the political correctness that's the problem.

So political correctness automatically endangers people?

Malaria? Interesting.

Also I think of diarrheal diseases as more of a living in a Castle 300 years ago problem.

warmonger1981 wrote:It's the political correctness that's the problem.

Quite right. The PC brigade are the real terrorists.

Yes PC does endanger people. On the UofM campus the police cannot specify a person's color in a crime. It's considered racist. So you can't say a white male committed a crime. Only a male did. See how that endangers a person. Who the f*ck do you look for if you don't even know the color of the person you're looking for? Or St.Paul public schools teach white privilege. I'm sure that doesn't cause uncomfortable situation for the white kids. Kids can physically assault teachers and don't get expelled. It's considered part of their culture to be violent and you must understand that. Not punish it. Thus planet is fucking nuts with zombies following the crazy politicians.

warmonger1981 wrote:Kids can physically assault teachers and don't get expelled. It's considered part of their culture to be violent and you must understand that. Not punish it.

lol. Sure thing bro.

2dimes wrote:Malaria? Interesting.

Also I think of diarrheal diseases as more of a living in a Castle 300 years ago problem.

The chart is worldwide. Yeah, not many deaths from dysentery in 2016 Canada, but still lots in many parts of the rest of the world.

warmonger1981 wrote:The government job is not to protect you. It's there to enforce the law.

Well, what is the motivation for "the law"? In theory, anyway, the point of laws is to improve the lives of people. If that's not what a law is doing, it needs to be changed.

warmonger1981 wrote:It's the political correctness that's the problem.

I'm not a fan of PC, but I see it as more of an annoying nuisance than a life-and-death issue.

@mrs if your interested.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -violence/




@Duk

If you can't describe a perpetrator then you may end up a victim. There are many different motivations for law. You know like a law to tax to regulate behavior. The problem is that laws always get passed never revoked. You probably know of a few laws that shouldn't be on the books.

warmonger1981 wrote:@mrs if your interested.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -violence/

Nowhere does that article say that the students who were violent towards teachers went unpunished.

I know you read fast. You might have missed this section.

Since continuing the statistical disparities is not politically correct, the district’s officials have moved on to Plan B: lowering the behavior standards to the extent that meaningful consequences to unacceptable behavior are eliminated. As a result, offenses such as “willful disobedience,” for example, are no longer subject to disciplinary action. Students engaging in this type of behavior may either chat with a school psychologist or simply be moved to another classroom.

warmonger1981 wrote:I know you read fast. You might have missed this section.

Since continuing the statistical disparities is not politically correct, the district’s officials have moved on to Plan B: lowering the behavior standards to the extent that meaningful consequences to unacceptable behavior are eliminated. As a result, offenses such as “willful disobedience,” for example, are no longer subject to disciplinary action. Students engaging in this type of behavior may either chat with a school psychologist or simply be moved to another classroom.

mrswdk wrote:Nowhere does that [paragraph] say that the students who were violent towards teachers went unpunished.

Edited.

riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!

That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.

Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.

Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?

This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.

Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.

We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.

2dimes wrote:Malaria? Interesting.

Also I think of diarrheal diseases as more of a living in a Castle 300 years ago problem.

More NATO troops in Afghanistan died of diarrhea than any other cause.

/ wrote:

riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!

That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.

Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.

Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?

This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.

Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.

We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.

Do you feel your post should be censored for telling people how to find information on making chemical weapons? Or for telling people to look for it?

Should you be publicising this kind of information? Should the powers that be put you on a list of people to keep an eye on for telling people to find weapon recipes and giving them instructions on how to do so?

Symmetry wrote:

/ wrote:

riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!

That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.

Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.

Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?

This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.

Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.

We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.

Do you feel your post should be censored for telling people how to find information on making chemical weapons? Or for telling people to look for it?

Should you be publicising this kind of information? Should the powers that be put you on a list of people to keep an eye on for telling people to find weapon recipes and giving them instructions on how to do so?

It's not policy yet, so no; ex post facto laws are illegal in my country. I believe that policy should be changed to prevent terror aligned activity. Should I repeat this post after policy is changed, then sure.

Yeah, I lecture my kids on not realizing how good we have it and then act surprised when I realize how good we have it.

/ wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

/ wrote:

riskllama wrote:perhaps they(your govt.) are trying to keep you down with fear, /?
hey, that's neat - i can ask / a question with one key!!!

That's and interesting take. Political logic is a curious thing; get results: we're doing great, spend more money so it's even better; Doesn't work: not enough money, spend more so it works.
It's rather cynical, but this is the same old story that lets all the politicians pump up their pet narrative of "you are not safe, so hurry up and [fund the police/give homeland security more power/get rid of guns/buy more guns/address mental health/go to war]." I don't think that the government is so cunning rather than so stupid though.
I am not afraid, just tired and aggravated.

Dukasaur wrote:Some perspective:
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

The chart can't be used for rigorous analysis because data is drawn from different samples and different years. I'm presenting it here as a "food for thought" kind of thing, not attempting to state that these numbers are gospel.

Just as one "for instance", around the world about 100 people die in highway accidents for every person who dies in a terrorist attack. We all know there are a lot of aggressive asshole drivers who never seem to get caught. If we're trying to save lives, would we be better off putting more cops into spying on Islamic websites, or more cops on the highway?

This is true, but it's cliche. You could say this about anything:
"Only" a fraction of a fraction of kidnappings are stranger-danger ransoms or murders, so why should we waste so many resources on Amber Alerts? Spend it on traffic instead.
Drugs? Traffic.
Domestic violence? Traffic.
Even if it's a tiny problem realistically, it's very dangerous to our society psychologically, so we should fight it.

Besides that, I'm not asking for some Person of Interest or CSI Cyber stuff, we don't need any new resources to address this. This is criminal behavior already in the public domain. Do a youtube search for bomb making instructions, or chemical weapon recipes; you will find videos for or by terrorist organizations. Honestly, we might save a bit of cash tossing these morons in Guantanamo rather than following them around for a few years. As for social media's end, it would be more than easy to censor this information.

We live in an age where Universal can shut down copyright infringement in an hour, but ISIS and drug cartels get viral theme songs.

Do you feel your post should be censored for telling people how to find information on making chemical weapons? Or for telling people to look for it?

Should you be publicising this kind of information? Should the powers that be put you on a list of people to keep an eye on for telling people to find weapon recipes and giving them instructions on how to do so?

It's not policy yet, so no; ex post facto laws are illegal in my country. I believe that policy should be changed to prevent terror aligned activity. Should I repeat this post after policy is changed, then sure.

Cute dodge, can I take a wild guess and say that you're American? And probably referring to the constitution rather than the law?

I reckon I'm right, and that's why you dodged the problems your reply brought up in relation to your previous posts.

But hey- I could well be wrong