Boston Marathon ,,,

Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
661
Location
Cedar Bluffs, Nebraska
wispfox said:
I have no idea if I agree with you. It's too early to be reading anything political about it, at least for me. I failed to be able to read the entire thing, or even past the very beginning when it was clear that it was a bit of a political rant. I don't think I know anyone who was hurt, but I do know a few who were far too close.

[edited to add] I agree with the beginning of what you said, in that our government is entirely too stuck in processes and argmenets within and between themselves.

I'm much less convinced that guns would have helped in this case, considering that the boston marathon is typically highly policed. If the police, whose jobs it is to protect people and use guns, were unable to prevent this, how would guns in civilian hands have had any effect? No one knows who caused it; there is only some vague suspicion.

I don't really feel like who the president is has much effect on terrorism, whether it turns out to be someone in the country or out of it. Preventing terrorism isn't really about the people at the top of the government, except possibly in that terrorism typically appears to relate to the tendency of people to want to retaliate for things done to them. So it _might_ be about wars we are or are not in, if it's externally sourced.

I dunno. I have no idea what the solution is, but saying that it's our fault seems to be an oversimplification, with no concrete ideas of what we can actually do. It's also really frustrating and a bit painful to read the same day it happened. I suspect that it's coming out of your own frustration and the fact that you are too far away to help, which I understand! And yet...

Hi Wispfox,

I think that you misunderstood my basic theme, which may have been obscured within and in-between the lines of my ranting. It is not political, it is "social" or "societial". My contention is that we are, as a whole, becoming too soft, too liberal and too lax that our enemies and just plain "wierdos" think that they can do whatever they please, when they please and have no repercusions. We don't seem to have any negative consequences for the actions of such people anymore. They know that they can get away with so much and we are just going to give them a slap on the hand for their wrong-doings and they will go out to the big box store and buy a big screen TV and watch it all and laugh, then write a book about it all and sell it.

My opinion is that we need to stop playing footsy with the terrorists, including Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda, etc and quit sending money abroad to countries which hate the US and start acting like a super power country again. We need to redevelop this mentality at home first, then send the same message abroad. If we start here at home, then our children will develop the same mindset and carry the message forward.

The "guns" issue and arming everyone is simply a matter of re-invigorating respect. You don't do road rage with a guy holding a 44 mag! Well, that isn't exactly my point, but I think it gets the message across in a metaphor. If you think the other driver could blow your head off, you won;t flip him the bird, but you shouldn't do so in the first place, right? I think what I am trying to exude is that what you do, your actions, have consequences. Our society is becoming overly liberal and allowing too many excuses so that people may not be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, you hear more reports of insanity and sensless shootings and bombings and beatings, etc. Nobody thinks they will be held accountable for their actions. It is always someone else's fault, someone else "drove" them to do it and therefore they are not guilty. Many times, this holds up in a court because the jury buys this crap!

I am sorry, but you killed someone, and unless they were trying to kill you first, you are going to hang! No more loopholes and ten to 30 years wasting the taxpayers money to find some way out. Tomorrow at sunrise, you go to the gallows! End of story. This is the message we need to propel so that lunatics have to think twice and three times before they try bombing someone. I don't think that they think that this world is real. I think that they believe it is never-never-land and they can do anything they please. It is our responsibility as citizens to enforce the notion that this is not true.

Gordy
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
JW, I had to stop watching ... I saw the 3 dead, 130 injured, the mention of the good folks who helped the injured, and the live interview with the AG, Mayor, etc, and couldnt handle anymore of it. ANY loss of an innocent life or injuries of this nature is disturbing at the least, but I cant handle the WAY the media keeps mentioning the young mother's loss of a leg, the death of an 8 yr old, or the youngest injured only being 3 yrs old ,,, There is enough drama in the fact that it happend, they dont need to push for more drama ... I really hate reporters .. there is a difference between reporting the cold hard facts of the news, and acting like drama seeking vultures.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
59
Reaction score
28
Location
Waltham, MA
Hardiness Zone
6a
I agree with almost all of what you said. Except... "Do you think if people feared the reprocussion (2 yrs in jail), there may be a few less instances???"

Honestly, no. I think that if people had better social norms, where not just the laws, but the people around them were better at showing disapproval for such things (how often do you hear "I'm good to drive!" at a bar from someone who has been drinking a while, but no one stops them? Just because they can walk and _look_ sober enough doesn't mean they are... or will be when they are driving, depending on how fast they were drinking), then we would have better results. I also think that we are _terrible_ at teaching our kids how to handle things like alcohol. No alcohol until you're 21 is an excellent recipe for having someone sneak alcohol before 21, and probably binge drink after. Unless they are one of those for whom the act of drinking is more unpleasant than overcoming social pressures to drink, or they were taught at a younger age how to handle alcohol (and anything which is semi-forbidden, really).

But I don't think that this has much to do with terrorism. There's a huge difference between terrible at avoiding doing things might (but usually doesn't or hasn't yet; people are _really_ good at rationalizing things!) put someone into danger and _intentionally_ putting someone else into danger.

I also don't think that defense of someone in the near term is at all the same as 'eye for an eye'. I think that this sort of thing - if it _is_ defense, and not 'someone might hurt me so I will hurt them first' is completely reasonable, rational, and wise. The problem with 'they might hurt me first' is that it's too easy to see something as dangerous if one is scared, and going from 'I think it's dangerous' to 'I will kill it before it kills me' is a very slippery slope.

I do think that any reaction which is not in the immediate defense of someone, and starts talking about doing violence to someone who you think might have done it, is very much 'eye for an eye'. Defense is very different from offense, even if the offense is in responce to something horrible.

Fascinatingly, I think that the 'praise your kid for the everything ever to improve their self-esteem' did the exact opposite. If you aren't praised for things that are actually good, then it's hard to tell what _is_ good. Of course, if you are never praised for things that are good, the same problem exists. I think that's why society went to that extreme. So in terms of the handouts idea, I suspect that that is part of the problem. If one is told one's entire life that they are fabulous just for existing, the idea of having to do hard work is not only a foreign one, but one which their upringing has trained them against. In fact, this reminds me a bit of helecoptor parents: if you never allow someone the freedom to fail and the ability to understand that it was something they can learn from, failure is _TERRIFYING_ and very much like the end of the world. So, yeah. handouts, indeed.

I am, btw, very sorry to hear about your daughter. And very very glad that her car saved her life and health!

Eh. I think part of my problem is that I don't think the Right _or_ the Left have it right. I just think the Right has slightly scarier policies.

Anyway! Bedtime for me, now. Hopefully I don't find out that I _did_ know someone there...
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
661
Location
Cedar Bluffs, Nebraska
wispfox said:
The problem is, how?

Terrorism of any sort is notoriously hard to combat. That's kind of the point of it. If someone is trying to make a point involving pain and death, and they don't care if they get caught or hurt or injured... what sort of punnishment or prevention will work?
Removing them from the gene pool works well enough for me. :)

Catfishnut
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
661
Location
Cedar Bluffs, Nebraska
I haven't allowed the Boston Marathon bombings to sink in just yet. Internally, I am avoiding that reality to preserve my soul. I want to believe that it didn't even happen, although I know that it did. It is difficult to ignore these things. They keep occurring and the news keeps reporting them. Those people who were killed and those who were wounded were/are someone's family! I feel something in my heart and in my stomach that I don't like. The feeling is for those people, who I never even met, but their loss tears me up inside. I want to fight back! I want everyone else to also fight back! Chose one front and dedicate yourself to it. I'll do my part in my part of the world.


Catfishnut
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
59
Reaction score
28
Location
Waltham, MA
Hardiness Zone
6a
Ok, one more before sleep. ;)

Gordy, you said:
"My opinion is that we need to stop playing footsy with the terrorists, including Iran, North Korea and Al Qaeda, etc and quit sending money abroad to countries which hate the US and start acting like a super power country again."

Hmm. Based on what I am aware of from our history, an awful lot of the terrorists against us personally (rather than each other, which is a whole different problem) are because we were meddling in their government or we attacked them. As I said elsewhere, they are doing an eye for an eye. We attacked them, hurt them, etc, so they are furious with us (typically, their kids are), and want to get back at us. Kind of like kids in a school yard, except that they have money and resources and they aren't in a school yard.

When you say that we need to stop playing footsy, what do you mean? The problem with such generalities is that I have no idea what they mean. Fighting terrorism is _hard_, unless your goal is to kill off everyone you can. In which case, anyone who survives (and people always do) will have excellent reason to hate us and want to hurt us. And may even have nothing to live for. Also, genocide is wrong entirely aside from being futile.

Who are we sending money to that hate us? (I don't ask retorical questions, in general. I actually don't know of anyone)

"The "guns" issue and arming everyone is simply a matter of re-invigorating respect. You don't do road rage with a guy holding a 44 mag! "

Heh. The thing about that... unfortunately, having guns tends to mean that people believe themselves perfectly capable of handling dangerous situations. This means that they don't back down. As with any dangerous situation, if you think you can win, then you will be less careful and more likely to provoke the other person/people.

So... what if both people think they can win because they are both holding weapons? Or, they both are in groups of people who have weapons? One shooting starts, everyone will shoot, probably killing or injuring everyone involved, and some innocent bystanders, too.

Everyone having guns is a terrifying thought, from that perspective. Sure, knowing how to use them is great. But what about learning how to handle dangerous situations? Cops are trained to deal with this exact sort of thing, and they still make mistakes.

"Well, that isn't exactly my point, but I think it gets the message across in a metaphor. If you think the other driver could blow your head off, you won;t flip him the bird, but you shouldn't do so in the first place, right?"

I think the 'shouldn't do that in the first place' part is far more important, because it's far less likely to cause escalation of violence. Too many people will retaliate with bigger force in response to an attack, or a perceived attack. Making that easier doesn't seem the right way to go.

I do think that we need to be better about being polite and... human? to each other. I think this is in part up to the parents, but in part up to the community at large. No set of parents raises their kids in a vaccuum, and kids who are raised by a group of people tend to learn how to interact in human society much better than those who are raised by people who have no reason other than money to care about what is often far too many children in their care. And very few couples can afford to only have one parent work, which means that crowded daycare and schools are involved in a lot of how children are raised. It _can't_ be about just the parents, and I think that assumption is part of the problem. It's not an easy thing to teach, and very few people are tasked with teaching it.

Being told that something is true is far less effective than having it demonstrated, preferably by everyone a child comes in contact with. That's both hard and time-consuming, and most people's lives are crazy in just trying to survive day to day.

"I think what I am trying to exude is that what you do, your actions, have consequences. Our society is becoming overly liberal and allowing too many excuses so that people may not be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, you hear more reports of insanity and sensless shootings and bombings and beatings, etc. Nobody thinks they will be held accountable for their actions. It is always someone else's fault, someone else "drove" them to do it and therefore they are not guilty. Many times, this holds up in a court because the jury buys this crap!"

Sorry, using the word 'liberal' feels a bit like a copout. So I'm going to ignore that, and address what I think is relevent.

There are many facits to this problem, which is why it's not solved yet. Easy problems aren't problems.

Any human who believes that nothing is worse than what they are doing through is, by definition, at a point where they have nothing to lose. When someone has nothing to lose, they are capable of doing _anything_ that they think might change something or help or anything at all.

So sure. To some extent, other people probably _did_ drive them to it. Bullying. Abuse. Untreated mental illness. The list continues. If these things were addressed better, we would probably have fewer people committing crimes of the sort which are of the 'last stand' type. (this is relevant to within our country. We cannot do much about this kind of thing elsewhere, at least right now)

At the same time, yes. These are crimes, and pretty horrific ones. In many cases, the people who are in that kind of mental state where nothing is left to lose will kill themselves, as well. Because, by definition, that includes their own life, which is by that point pretty intolerable. (some people's 'couldn't get worse' only includes suicide. Others include homicide. Anger pointed inward versus anger pointed outward)

For those who do not kill themseves? Yes, if they are that badly off, they are a danger to themselves and to others. No question. Our jails are overflowing. Anyone sent to jail tends to come out a hardened criminal, even if they were not beforehand. Do you really want to send someone whose life has driven them to murder to a place which will teach them that their belief about things getting worse is just how life is, and they shouldn't expect better? Or, maybe, for those who might be possible to save, put them somewhere that they cannot hurt others or themselves, and heal them?

Wait, except that our mental hospitals are horribly underfunded. So where to put them? Apparently, jail. Where they will be trained how to be a hardened criminal. Or, I suppose, we could kill them. Since they weren't kind enough to kill themselves for us. Because clearly, the bullies and the abusers were right. They are worthless.

"I am sorry, but you killed someone, and unless they were trying to kill you first, you are going to hang! No more loopholes and ten to 30 years wasting the taxpayers money to find some way out. Tomorrow at sunrise, you go to the gallows! End of story. This is the message we need to propel so that lunatics have to think twice and three times before they try bombing someone. I don't think that they think that this world is real. I think that they believe it is never-never-land and they can do anything they please. It is our responsibility as citizens to enforce the notion that this is not true."

It's not that they think the world is not real.

For terrorists outside the country, it's probably that they think we are the symbol of ultimate evil because we killed someone they knew and loved. And they believe that by fighting evil, they will go to their version of heaven. (Christianity did this, too. Holy wars? Yeah.)

For those inside the country? The world is _intolerable_.

I have no doubt that there are actually people who are just sick and twisted and neither of these things are true. However, I believe that those are not the vast majority of people. Most of them? Damaged in some way, and we really have to address what is causing the damage in our kids.

(Why yes, I am in psychology. Well, ok, human-robot interaction. But psychology still invades my brain)
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
wispfox said:
I agree with almost all of what you said. Except... "Do you think if people feared the reprocussion (2 yrs in jail), there may be a few less instances???"

Honestly, no.
I have personally seen improvements here. With one friend, who lost his license for drunk driving, he did not drink and drive as long as he was going for his piss tests ... as soon as probation ended, back to drinking and driving ... still no license by the way ....

wispfox said:
I think that if people had better social norms, where not just the laws, but the people around them were better at showing disapproval for such things (how often do you hear "I'm good to drive!" at a bar from someone who has been drinking a while, but no one stops them?
How much better can you get at it? Hubby just tried NOT to kill his friend when he jumped him (literally hanging off his back) because he took the keys away? Meanwhile his autistic nephew is saying Uncle, knock it off, and 75 yr old mom is telling hubby not to hurt him (he didnt, but not hubbys fault that the moron broke his own nose when he FELL to the floor LOL) ... end result, tired of the drama, and nolonger returning his calls ...

wispfox said:
I also think that we are _terrible_ at teaching our kids how to handle things like alcohol. No alcohol until you're 21 is an excellent recipe for having someone sneak alcohol before 21, and probably binge drink after. Unless they are one of those for whom the act of drinking is more unpleasant than overcoming social pressures to drink, or they were taught at a younger age how to handle alcohol (and anything which is semi-forbidden, really).
Frankly, I feel that most parents do NOT parent their kids at all ...

wispfox said:
But I don't think that this has much to do with terrorism. There's a huge difference between terrible at avoiding doing things might (but usually doesn't or hasn't yet; people are _really_ good at rationalizing things!) put someone into danger and _intentionally_ putting someone else into danger.
At this point, we do not know if it was a terrorist attack, or some moron whose parents didnt hug him enough ...

wispfox said:
I also don't think that defense of someone in the near term is at all the same as 'eye for an eye'. I think that this sort of thing - if it _is_ defense, and not 'someone might hurt me so I will hurt them first' is completely reasonable, rational, and wise. The problem with 'they might hurt me first' is that it's too easy to see something as dangerous if one is scared, and going from 'I think it's dangerous' to 'I will kill it before it kills me' is a very slippery slope.
Pretty simple ... are you being threatend with physical harm or not? A person best not enter my house by accident with a shiney object in hand ... sorry, I'll shoot first and ask questions later. I would rather errr on the side of caution then be killed or bury a family member ,,,

wispfox said:
I do think that any reaction which is not in the immediate defense of someone, and starts talking about doing violence to someone who you think might have done it, is very much 'eye for an eye'. Defense is very different from offense, even if the offense is in responce to something horrible.
I support the death penalty, too bad the law was changed here.

wispfox said:
I am, btw, very sorry to hear about your daughter. And very very glad that her car saved her life and health!
Thank you. We'll be in court with a strong victim statement, but again, in this liberal state, nothing will be done,

wispfox said:
Eh. I think part of my problem is that I don't think the Right _or_ the Left have it right. I just think the Right has slightly scarier policies.
I have intentionally avoid the right verses left ... I am a Republican, but of my grandfathers generation ... NOW, the so called Republicans are what the Democrats used to be, and the Democrats are socialists ... just my view ... I dont think any of them are worth what we PAY THEM ...

wispfox said:
Anyway! Bedtime for me, now. Hopefully I don't find out that I _did_ know someone there...
Nite, and am hoping the same ...
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
Catfishnut said:
I feel something in my heart and in my stomach that I don't like. The feeling is for those people, who I never even met, but their loss tears me up inside. I want to fight back! I want everyone else to also fight back!
I agree 100% and this is why I couldnt handle more of the sensationlizism of some reporters ...
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
59
Reaction score
28
Location
Waltham, MA
Hardiness Zone
6a
Catfishnut said:
Removing them from the gene pool works well enough for me. :)

Catfishnut
Sadly, that doesn't work.

If it did, there would be no terrorists.

Unfortunately, it seems like the more often we kill people (at least, if we try to go to where we think they come from), we find someone that cared about those who are dead - very like the family and friends of those people hurt in this attack - who wants to get back at us for it. If one is in a country where it's encouraged - in other words, anyone who is a terrorist probably _is_ - all that did is make more terrorists.

It's kind of like the death penalty. If it worked, we wouldn't have to use it. When it was legal (not sure if it is right now anywhere), it's not as if using it stopped crime.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
59
Reaction score
28
Location
Waltham, MA
Hardiness Zone
6a
ah, sorry. capewind, i was unclear with my statement about society and alcohol. (on phone while eating snack before bed, so no caps)

i didn't mean individuals specifically should be better about taking keys away. meant that as an example, but failed to be clear.

if there were an implicit assumption in our society that you just don't drink and then drive, if anytime someone was about to drink alcohol while not at home, their keys were automatically put into a 'I'm going to drink' bucket or every place that served alcohol automatically assumed that anyone who was drinking would either specify their driver who did not drink, or gave their keys to the bartender, then no one would need to wrestle keys out of the hands of someone who shouldn't drive. it would just be something you didn't do.

i don't know how one would get to that point, but it should be something completely out of societal norms to do, so that anyone who did it would be shunned, ridiculed, or otherwise clearly disobeying unspoken norms in a dangerous and stupid way.

do you see what i was trying to say? it ought to be like... stripping naked in public. just something that is not done. y'know?

anyway.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
661
Location
Cedar Bluffs, Nebraska
Wispfox,

Awesome reply! You wrote a lot there so it is going to take some time to respond to each subject. I do want to tell you that I enjoy the discussion, but I wish the trigger (the Marathon Bombings) hadn't occurred to spur this communication. But, it is good to have someone to talk it through. I honestly feel really churned up inside and I am glad that you folks, all of you, are here to chat with.
This incident really bothers me and disresses me. Thank you for being here to talk it over.

Catfishnut
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
wispfox said:
Hmm. Based on what I am aware of from our history, an awful lot of the terrorists against us personally (rather than each other, which is a whole different problem) are because we were meddling in their government or we attacked them. As I said elsewhere, they are doing an eye for an eye. We attacked them, hurt them, etc, so they are furious with us (typically, their kids are), and want to get back at us. Kind of like kids in a school yard, except that they have money and resources and they aren't in a school yard.
I told my kids my house, my rules ... when they pay their own bills, they can make the rules ... Other countries ... our money, our rules ... dont like our rules, dont take our money....

wispfox said:
Who are we sending money to that hate us? (I don't ask retorical questions, in general. I actually don't know of anyone)
I thought you were going to bed ... that is going to be a long list ...

wispfox said:
"The "guns" issue and arming everyone is simply a matter of re-invigorating respect. You don't do road rage with a guy holding a 44 mag! "

Heh. The thing about that... unfortunately, having guns tends to mean that people believe themselves perfectly capable of handling dangerous situations. This means that they don't back down. As with any dangerous situation, if you think you can win, then you will be less careful and more likely to provoke the other person/people.
Define dangerous situation... I bet a bad guy can pull a trigger faster than I can DIAL 911 ... what do you say, please Mr Badguy, dont shoot, the police are coming to rescue me??? Now there IS some concern with some people not keeping their guns appropriately locked up, but how about we hit the statistics next on how many actual registered gun owners kill INNOCENT PEOPLE, verses how many bad guys with guns kill innocent people ... This is a scarey statement here, but the majority of RESPONSIBLE gun owners are RESPONSIBLE with their guns. The issue here is for honest law abiding folks to be able to protect themselves in an honest situation where they feel their life to be threatend. We're not talking Dirty Harry saying "Make my day" ... Betting if there were some armed teachers in CT, there would have been fewer deaths. Nutcases and badguys dont avoid school because they know it is wrong, they target them because they KNOW they are not armed ... How about we become neighbors ... I'll put this sign in front of my house pointing to yours ... Which house do you think would be safer???



Rule #1 of self defense is to be aware of your situation and not set yourself up to be a victim.

wispfox said:
Everyone having guns is a terrifying thought, from that perspective. Sure, knowing how to use them is great. But what about learning how to handle dangerous situations? Cops are trained to deal with this exact sort of thing, and they still make mistakes.
Well, unless you happen to be the POTUS, most of us cant afford to have personal protection standing next to us 24/7. I do have to ask however if you have a FID card, and if so, how long have you had it? Have you ever been to a firing range, or attended a gun safety course? Both do exist, even in this liberal state.

wispfox said:
"I think what I am trying to exude is that what you do, your actions, have consequences. Our society is becoming overly liberal and allowing too many excuses so that people may not be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, you hear more reports of insanity and sensless shootings and bombings and beatings, etc. Nobody thinks they will be held accountable for their actions. It is always someone else's fault, someone else "drove" them to do it and therefore they are not guilty. Many times, this holds up in a court because the jury buys this crap!"

Sorry, using the word 'liberal' feels a bit like a copout. So I'm going to ignore that, and address what I think is relevent.
How is it a copout??? Johnny didnt get enough hugs and kisses, so when he pushed the 70 yr old man off the jetty, he shouldnt be punished. That mentality is a FACT. Oh, he's young, he's only 12, we can fix him (do you remember this is the papers a few years back?), or give him meds (we can all HOPE he takes those meds) ... Some people can not be fixed. Lock the brat up and throw away the key. Sorry this sounds so cold, but if someone is that broken that they are a risk to society, get them off the streets. Enough of the excuses and slaps on the wrists.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
wispfox said:
ah, sorry. capewind, i was unclear with my statement about society and alcohol. (on phone while eating snack before bed, so no caps) i didn't mean individuals specifically should be better about taking keys away. meant that as an example, but failed to be clear. if there were an implicit assumption in our society that you just don't drink and then drive, if anytime someone was about to drink alcohol while not at home, their keys were automatically put into a 'I'm going to drink' bucket or every place that served alcohol automatically assumed that anyone who was drinking would either specify their driver who did not drink, or gave their keys to the bartender, then no one would need to wrestle keys out of the hands of someone who shouldn't drive. it would just be something you didn't do. i don't know how one would get to that point, but it should be something completely out of societal norms to do, so that anyone who did it would be shunned, ridiculed, or otherwise clearly disobeying unspoken norms in a dangerous and stupid way. do you see what i was trying to say? it ought to be like... stripping naked in public. just something that is not done. y'know? anyway.
I sure hope you are not implying drunks do not know it is wrong ... there IS peer pressure ... and as for stripping naked in public, I guess you dont get down to the Cape beaches much. We have a few nude beaches, but some of these same folks turn up at the normal beaches as well ... bad analogy LOL. It's called they dont give a fuck and do what they want anyways because of the LACK of meaningful reprocussions. Drunk driving in Mass = slap on the wrist .... Lude behavior, indecent exposure = slap on the wrist... It isnt rocket science to see the patterns.

Friends 14 yr old daughter was raped multi times by their friend who stayed with them... His defense in court was he was in a motorcycle accident ten years before and didnt know what he was doing. It took 4 years of this young girl going to court to finally convict this maggot ... He got 18 months. Oh yes, that will teach him!!! Reprocussion for his actions??? Laughable ...
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,583
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Cape Cod, MA
Catfishnut said:
Wispfox,

Awesome reply! You wrote a lot there so it is going to take some time to respond to each subject. I do want to tell you that I enjoy the discussion, but I wish the trigger (the Marathon Bombings) hadn't occurred to spur this communication. But, it is good to have someone to talk it through. I honestly feel really churned up inside and I am glad that you folks, all of you, are here to chat with.
This incident really bothers me and disresses me. Thank you for being here to talk it over.

Catfishnut
I agree ... I think wispfox's views are much more liberal, but it is through open discussions where we can find balance, or at least common ground.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Hello from Boston 32

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
30,780
Messages
508,559
Members
13,042
Latest member
lucaryan

Latest Threads

Top