The school should just write the kid up. Usually people who make threats are talking out of there @ss.. People who are harmful do it. Not talk the talk.
The school should just write the kid up. Usually people who make threats are talking out of there @ss.. People who are harmful do it. Not talk the talk.
Clearly, the school should ban anybody who threatens to kill other students in a spree killing. However, I'm a little skeptical on any story coming out of InfoWars. Anybody have a non-conspiracy website source for this?
Clearly, the school should ban anybody who threatens to kill other students in a spree killing. However, I'm a little skeptical on any story coming out of InfoWars. Anybody have a non-conspiracy website source for this?
@batwatch: why would you automatically discredit the site when mainstream news is known to lie and twist the truth more than anyone. Not to mention there are sources in the article. Also as we speak donald trump is on the Alex jones show.
It's obvious that minorities will experience fear and anger towards their natural oppressors. I can identify with this.
I totally understand. I ran out of gas in my car the other day in the middle of the road in a bad neighborhood. I was feeling scared and angry when a cop came up to check on why I was blocking the road, and I screamed, "I'm going to kill all you pigs!," and the cop just laughed and said, "I understand. We all threaten to murder people when we have a bad day. Thankfully, you have immunity from any crime as long as you feel fear or anger. Have a good day, sir."
This is the kind of thing that should happen rather than black lives being slaughtered mercilessly on the street. Police should have empathy for the minorities who fear everday that they'l GET KILLED because they're behaviors deviate from the compliance of their authoritarian liking.
This is the kind of thing that should happen rather than black lives being slaughtered mercilessly on the street. Police should have empathy for the minorities who fear everday that they'l GET KILLED because they're behaviors deviate from the compliance of their authoritarian liking.
Oh sure, I agree 100%. A cop's main job is to coddle the feelings of people, and it's crucial that he treat people differently based on their race. Terroristic threatening might be bad for a white guy, but for a black guy, it's just his way of expressing his innermost feelings. You can't make it a crime to express feelings, can you? Certainly not. The double standards you advocated is completely justified.
It's really just the logical continuation of the values Martin Luther King articulated when he said, "I have a dream, that one day my children will be judged not by the content of their character but on whether or not they have black skin and feel oppressed."
The school should just write the kid up. Usually people who make threats are talking out of there @ss.. People who are harmful do it. Not talk the talk.
True but some of the stuff these days makes no sense. Like this kid is talking crap but he is still let back in, 20,000+ Syrians refugees are coming to Canada but our government thinks not ONE person is radicalized or belongs to ISIS and Vanilla Ice is still alive. (Jimmy from South Park's voice) I mean coooooome oooon!
@batwatch: why would you automatically discredit the site when mainstream news is known to lie and twist the truth more than anyone. Not to mention there are sources in the article. Also as we speak donald trump is on the Alex jones show.
I haven't automatically discredited InfoWars. I've checked out their site, looked up their claims and I've found them to frequently rely on baseless claims. I agree that the media frequently distorts the truth through framing and omission of key details, but they at least usually have some basis in fact. InfoWars on the other hand is a conspiracy theory website. When you quote from a conspiracy theory website, you run the risk of discrediting yourself and whatever movement you represent.
You can't be racist nor rape or kill white people because of systematic oppression, blah, blah, reverse racism stuff or whatever they teach kids in sociology courses these days.
Okay so...after actually reading about it here are the facts.
1. He's being charged with crimes and faces 5 years in prison.
2. He's in home detention until trial, after which if he is found guilty he will most likely spend multiple years in prison.
3. The judge ruled that he may be allowed to return to classes legally (dumbass idea), but the school has not said that they would accept him back yet. It's entirely possible, and likely that they will expel him for the threats.
In conclusion yeah it's kind of ridiculous, but it's not nearly as ridiculous as the click-bait title portrays it.
Okay so...after actually reading about it here are the facts.
1. He's being charged with crimes and faces 5 years in prison.
2. He's in home detention until trial, after which if he is found guilty he will most likely spend multiple years in prison.
3. The judge ruled that he may be allowed to return to classes legally (dumbass idea), but the school has not said that they would accept him back yet. It's entirely possible, and likely that they will expel him for the threats.
In conclusion yeah it's kind of ridiculous, but it's not nearly as ridiculous as the click-bait title portrays it.
If your goal is to limit the power of government, maybe you shoulsnt advocate that people be killed for terroristic threatening before they even go to trial. Just food for thought.
@lunacyde:
Thanks for the info.
Also, this is a good example of why you don't use InfoWars as a source.
If your goal is to limit the power of government, maybe you shoulsnt advocate that people be killed for terroristic threatening before they even go to trial. Just food for thought.
@lunacyde:
Thanks for the info.
Also, this is a good example of why you don't use InfoWars as a source.
You're welcome. Also I agree they are a misleading source, however in this case they at least had links leading to some sources that seemed legitimate.
If your goal is to limit the power of government, maybe you shoulsnt advocate that people be killed for terroristic threatening before they even go to trial. Just food for thought.
@lunacyde:
Thanks for the info.
Also, this is a good example of why you don't use InfoWars as a source.
You're welcome. Also I agree they are a misleading source, however in this case they at least had links leading to some sources that seemed legitimate.
I don't know that InfoWars is actively trying to promote lies. I suspect they just report everything as if it's true without doing any research. I've found that they often just repeat things that they pick up off blogs or in chain e-mails. They do a lot of damage to people like me who do want a radically smaller government but don't believe every story ever told about the government.
@avenger85: They aren't even close to the same thing.
They're the same stupid crap. And equally annoying.
Well despite you still being wrong I'm neither. If you were to ask people I went to school with what "group" I fit into jock would easily be the answer you get the most. So wrong, yet again.
If I said, "It's from InfoWars, so it cant' be true," that would be an ad hominem attack, but expressing skepticism based on a source is not an ad hominem attack. The first example draws an illogical conclusion. The second draws no conclusion but seeks to confirm a story from an unreliable source.
@batwatch: Did you read the link? There is a difference between 'ad hominem' and 'ad hominem circumstantial'. Just because you don't like the source that doesn't mean the facts are untrue. What if they did a report that said, "The sky is blue"? Would you still be skeptical based on the source?
@batwatch: Did you read the link? There is a difference between 'ad hominem' and 'ad hominem circumstantial'. Just because you don't like the source that doesn't mean the facts are untrue. What if they did a report that said, "The sky is blue"? Would you still be skeptical based on the source?
I already addressed this in my last comment, but I'll try to rephrase it here. I would indeed be guilty of ad hominem circumstantial if I said, "This story is from media matters, so it can't be true," but I didn't say that. I NEVER SAID THE STORY WAS INVALID; therefore, I did not make an ad hom cir statement.
Saying a source cannot be true is ad hom cir. Saying a source may be true but is not necessarily reliable is not.
As far as the "Sky is blue" report, I would not view it with skepticism because this is a general truth. If it said anything unusual about the sky, then I'd verify it with an outside source before I trusted it.
Log in to comment