Venting

[Howlitzer]

I'm going to have to agree with Redeye on this one.

This is a Venting thread...people are supposed to be able to vent their frustrations and be done with it. Bringing politics into the matter causes arguments, especially with the rather matter-of-factly harsh attitudes I've seen expressed towards differing opinions in here.

That makes things worse, alienates people, and causes harsh feelings all around, and honestly completely DEFEATS the purpose of the Venting thread. So, if there is to be a place for politics, there should be a place for politics. And it can stay there.

However, honestly, whenever politics gets brought up it in here it leads to the same core group of people calling another group of people asshats and idiots for their differing opinions, and the flame wars start. I myself have been called a "Meatheaded Republican" because I dared argue against some of the things that were said ... I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat, I just think for myself, not with everyone else.

Regardless of my political opinion, I find such generalizations small minded and insulting. If politics always degrades to one group of people being called idiots for having a differing opinion, sometimes even into full-on conspiracy theories... why the hell should we have it here? Without fail, it makes things worse.

Having said this you could almost rename a "place for politics" to "a place to rabidly ridicule people with differing opinions" given the behavior seen much of the time. Unless that name is no longer fitting of the discussion, why should it be here? If there's going to be a place for politics, it has to be kept more civil if things are to avoid degrading into a full-on mess.

Also Silent Hunter, you're pushing your luck there... just a bit. When there's a threat to delete posts by a moderator if a topic is continued, do you seriously think threatening to repeatedly REPOST is a *good* idea?

The venting thread should be left a venting thread. People need it, it's a good place for that type of thing, it helps people let out their frustrations without having to worry much about it causing trouble. Politics inevitably undermines that, hence why it should be elsewhere.

Just so it's known, this is all I have to say on the matter. I am not participating in the actual politics of this argument, nor will I.

[Silent Hunter]

However, honestly, whenever politics gets brought up it in here it leads to the same core group of people calling another group of people asshats and idiots for their differing opinions, and the flame wars start. I myself have been called a "Meatheaded Republican" because I dared argue against some of the things that were said ... I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat, I just think for myself, not with everyone else.

I actually agree with you there Howl. My sig quote is kinda fitting for that. I just think it;s a shame really as if we could tame that problem then it may be a lot more interesting and a lot more smoother for people talking about that. You should not be called names tbh. Thus why I would like to see how a vetted thread would do.

Also yeah, on venting, I agree too. Politics venting is OK but if you want to talk about it, then make a thread about it.

I hope that sounds more reasonable.

[Terastas]

Yeah, it's a sad sight when a mod has to step in and reprimand the board for writing out actual discussions about politics (instead of flying off the handle at each other, which would have been venting).

We also live in a strange world when the election of a guy who favored legislation allowing hospitals to deny emergency contraceptives to rape victims (and who, as Wanda Sykes noted last night, pimped his daughters out during his victory address) doesn't count as a legitimate venting topic.

I can accept the fact that nobody that needs to read my political posts has any interest in doing so. . . But it's still very therapeutic for me to write them. I thought that was the purpose of this thread; to get things off our chests.

Sorry RedEye, I'll try not to post (what I believe to be) respectful rebuttals when it comes to politics anymore. Next time I'll just vent about how I think the person is a total douche bag instead.

[/sarcasm]

[Silent Hunter]

Jesus Ter, calm down for f*** sake. The reason Redeye stepped in this time was not because of the political stuff but because you were pratically calling someone an idiot. Now I know you may still think that and have strong views on certain subjects but you derailed the threads purpose horridly along with Gev and to some extent, me.

Now I would like to sort this political stuff here and now and find a way we can talk about this issue without matching the quote in my sig. I really don't want some of ban on the subject and I would rather solve it in a more positive manner.

Now please, stop it.

[Sevena]

.

[ledrif]

CURSE THOSE DAMMM FREAKING JUNK E-MAILS!!!
AND THOSE E-MAIL SPAMMERS RARRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IM SICK OF THEM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gevaudan]

Terastas, I want to apologize for my behavior earlier. It was wrong of me to overreact. The reason I was throwing out a bunch of criticism with no real solutions or ideas on my end was because I was mad. I wasn't saying that I was mad and that I wanted others to fix the problems for me; I was just saying that I was mad. I wanted to get that off of my chest before it erupted out of me, so that I could move on with my life. You struck a raw nerve, and I'm sorry for my irrational response. It was stupid of me.

Since this is a venting thread, I just wanted to be angry for anger's sake. I didn't care at the time of actually doing anything; I just wanted to be angry because I was angry. Now that I'm a bit more clear in the head, I realize the hypocrisy of my anger. If I want solutions, and if I want to be honest with myself, then I can't simply argue with others or vent my anger or nonsense like that. Again, I'm sorry.

On a different note, should we have a separate political thread from the venting thread, so that we can separate arguments from rants?

[Silent Hunter]

On a different note, should we have a separate political thread from the venting thread, so that we can separate arguments from rants?

Yes, it would make sure everything stays where it should stay.

[RedEye]

Hmmm. This is not a bad idea; a separate Political thread.

It would not be policed by the Mods or Admins; you go there at your own peril.
Tantrums over things one can do nothing about would be allowed.
Slamming other members would be allowed.
Flaming...

Wait a mo'... there are those pesky TOS we have to abide by.

So, no. No political thread. Use IM's for that and bash each other if you must; but this is the Venting thread; as was so well described by Sevana. You Vent: blow off steam. You do not slam other members. You try to remember that the rule: "Treat others as you want to be treated..." is and will be respected and if necessary; enforced.
Period.

And a repost of a deleted thread will get you banned, for whatever time we Mods deem necessary and appropriate.

[Silent Hunter]

Well yeah, I am talking about political vents where any further dicussion is moved to it's only threads.

Also we pretty much already have a political thread. The Respect Towards atheists thread is a religious/lack of based one which is another sore spot to talk about along with political ideas. This thread does not break the TOS and posts that do should be removed or moderated.

So I really am not sure what you are still fussing about. Your getting what you want

You try to remember that the rule: "Treat others as you want to be treated..." is and will be respected and if necessary; enforced.

I hate to be a little prat by saying this but what if I expect to be treated rougher in such threads?

[RedEye]

You're gonna be disappointed.

[JoshuaMadoc]

So you think I'm a presumptuous prick who's also excessively paranoid. Right. That's absolutely true.


But you know what? So is this:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-l ... light-9247


Do you fellow Twilight fans really want to know why you're constantly ostracized and mistrusted? Read that. Now. If you won't read it, I'll keep my trust away from your filthy sparkling hands.

[Figarou]

So you think I'm a presumptuous prick who's also excessively paranoid. Right. That's absolutely true.


But you know what? So is this:

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-l ... light-9247


Do you fellow Twilight fans really want to know why you're constantly ostracized and mistrusted? Read that. Now. If you won't read it, I'll keep my trust away from your filthy sparkling hands.

It's hard to believe what that Twilight fan said about The Wolfman remake. Who knows what he'll say about Freeborn once it hits the big screen. (That's IF it ever comes out.)

[Terastas]

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/open-l ... light-9247

Wow! I mean. . . Wow! That's the kind of stupidity even Heidi & Spencer would facepalm at.

[JoshuaMadoc]

I'm looking at the article's comments where Twilight fans are shaking their heads at one of their own for being so oblivious... I don't buy it. At all. These are the same group of people who think Stephen King and some other classic fantasy authors are the worst hacks in existence.

[Terastas]

*deep breath*

Okay. . . I know you guys don't like political subjects here in the vent thread. . . But I think Scott Brown using the Austin suicide attack to promote himself should be an exception to the rule.

[heartlessfang]

^*insert additional face palm here*

[IndianaJones]

Damn TF2 Trolls and their silly pRon!

[JoshuaMadoc]

Okay, so, the local police here says they''re going to be more "serious" about their crackdown in weapons confiscations in light of increasing knife attacks in some parts of the state, and they've got the backing of an ex-biker youth reformer kind of guy and blah blah blah. Why does this piss me off? Because the impression they're making is that they want to disarm everyone in the state, and still catch you off-guard with a 2+ year jail term for using kicks as part of your self-defense repertoire against assaults. Yes, the victim got arrested for just that.

Well, then, what in the f*** name of god would be the point of practicing martial arts/self-defense? Just ban that as well so that everyone would be defenseless, save for the brazen few who spit law in the face and continue whacking people because they're pissed off that the government doesn't give two rat's arses about how s*** their lives are. And here I am stuck in the duality between picking fights against thugs and continuing to live as a moron of a dweeb all because I don't feel like spending time in jail, unless prison wardens want to see me tearing eyes off people's heads. Forget the rights to bear arms, let's just all sit here and wait for us to be helplessly mugged, land our arses in hospital, get a massive unpayable hospital bill, come out of hospital with a disability that filters your job choices to product packaging in plastic factories, or worse, land everyone funeral fees.

Let's all do that, shall we?


EDIT: And don't even tell me to move to America. Your country is great with all the rights to bear arms crap and a massive chunk of help on the internet applying only to america, but your airport security staff are made up of retards. Just ask that one incredibly unlucky video game journalist who had his Xbox 360 dismantled beyond repair because staff thought it was rigged to blow, and got refused any kind of compensation in the most face-spitting way any idiot can possibly think of. I'm not going there until said retards are fired, or better yet, dead.

[heartlessfang]

We also can get hit with a lawsuit/arrest if we beat up someone mugging or attacking us if the police find out that you have prior martial arts experience......It's inherently backwards logic; Blaming the victim.

[JoshuaMadoc]

You see? What's the point, seriously? Just ban it altogether, and make society degenerate into bald, toga-wearing pacifists who'd DIE within the next 10 seconds of a super-invasion. Just think of the children's wellbeing. </sarcasm>

[RedEye]

Let me point out that here in the U.S. just about every grease patch on a road with more than a very small number of residents can incorporate as a town; a legal person with authority to make laws, etc...
Where I live, the laws on self-defence are pretty lenient. If you use equal force to protect yourself; it's legal...even if you're a black-belt in a dozen different fighting styles.
The city next door is nervous about people having Pepper spray. Another one lets you have as mucy as you want.
The actual Law speaks to "Necessary force to protect oneself from harm"-- but the way municipalities interpret this is all over the place. That's the fun part of living here; the inherent risk associated with going out of town to eat dinner with friends. One never knows what silly but enforcable law has been enacted since your last visit.

There is one thing you can do about it, though, outside of an election year. If called for jury service, decide if the cops are playing games with the law, and decide your portion of the verdict in that manner; regardless of what the Judge says.
Every jury has the right to repudiate a charge; that is: "Yeah, he did it; but he comitted no crime in the process".
There is nothing the court or the law can do about it, either.
We still have that right; let's use it!

[Howlitzer]

I'm in MA, and if I recall correctly the basic policy here for dealing with a home intruder is that you can't fight back unless they have you cornered. Otherwise you have to attempt to escape.

In my opinion this is downright asinine, because it effectively implies that, in the eyes of the law, your property is of lower priority than the well being of the person breaking into your house to STEAL YOUR PROPERTY OR HURT/KILL YOU.

[Uniform Two Six]

It's a bit more complicated than that. There's an old principle known as the "Castle Principle". The argument goes that you may only defend yourself with deadly force if you cannot escape. The exception is when you are within your home, at which point, traditionally, you may use any and all force you deem necessary to defeat/repel/kill an intruder. It's called the "Castle Principle" because the Supreme Court ruled long ago that "a man's home is his castle" and by extension, once you are within your home, theoretically under law, there is no place for you to escape to since you are already within your place of last refuge.

But, there's some problems with this. First, you still have to justify the use of deadly force (an intruder who does not actually pose a threat, for instance a mere nusiance like Jehova's Witnesses -- no matter how much you might want to shoot them -- isn't a justifiable use of deadly force). Second, the definition of your "home" gets a little fuzzy if you don't actually own the property -- you are renting an apartment, or even if you have mortgaged the property, for instance. Lastly, this all regards criminal law. Some lunatic with a sawed off shotgun smashes his way through your sliding glass door and starts shooting up your place, you shoot him and kill him, you're probably good as far as potential criminal charges are concerned -- but the dork's next of kin can still sue the ever-living-daylights out of you for wrongful death. Civil litigation is a b****.

[Terastas]

*deep breath*

Okay. . . I know you guys don't like political subjects here in the vent thread. . . But I think Scott Brown using the Austin suicide attack to promote himself should be an exception to the rule.

And I think Scott Brown constantly challenging the president to a ****ing basketball game should be an exception too!