On Wednesday, October 5, I made the mistake of carefully writing and re-writing at least four comments at stories on the San Jose Mercury News Web site, each of which was initially accepted, only to see every one of them had been deleted today. I kept getting Facebook messages today from the SJMN, notifying me of later comments from other readers. But when I looked for own comments, they were gone. In one case, the censors also deleted the post I had responded to, by a black supremacist supporter of Allman’s, a young woman who cast him as the victim. The others, who appeared to be non-blacks, sounded more like socialists, and their anti-justice comments were all permitted to stand, thus making it seem as if their position were much more popular than it really was. And the censors did not mark my deleted comments as censored, thereby giving readers the impression that the comments at the site were truly representative of readers. (I know; I never learn!)
I posted a link to my blog at the end of each message. In case anyone is wondering whether the SJMN is anti-link, the paper does permit links.
• Erik Golobic • Sunnyvale, California [N.S.: First post on thread.]
And all we can do is hide in our homes and hope the police catch him. Had someone at that meeting been a concealed carry of weapons permit holder this would all be over already. Stop disarming victims.
Reply • 76 • Unlike
Maya Bohnhoff • San Jose, California [Second post.]
Really? Arm everybody? Then how do you tell the violent from the non-violent? Presently, if you see someone with a gun in public, you know there's a problem. If everyone's armed, it's highly likely that one law-abiding "carrier" of firearms may be accidentally killed by another who misreads a situation.
Arming the world isn't the solution, especially at a time when there's so much rampant fear and loathing. Alas, we can't keep people from carrying anger and hostility around; our only palliative (and that's all it is, really) is to not let them carry weapons that allow them to express that anger and hostility in lethal ways.
Reply • 81 • Like
o Nicholas Stix • Top Commenter • Works at Why the hell would I tell you??
Maya Bohnhoff,
I’m trying to imagine a more ignorant or dishonest statement about the legal keeping and bearing of arms … but nothing occurs to me, offhand.
The likelihood that one law-abiding carrier of firearms may be accidentally killed by another who misreads a situation is as close to nil as you will find for any social policy question.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
o Karthik Gomadam • Senior Research Associate at Accenture Technology Labs
If we had better gun laws, this and many more may not have even happened. Please do not use a tragedy to push forward the gun agenda.
Reply • 1 • Like
o N.S.: Karthik Gomadam, please do not exploit a tragedy to push your gun-grabbing agendum.
• Wendy Fong Mai responded to Nicolas Herrera’s statement,
Message to the Cops:"When you find the shooter please just spray him with bullets, save tax payer money" Thank you
Mai wrote,
Wow, really? We have a justice system for a reason since we supposedly live in a "civilized" society. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind....
N.S.: Actually… no. That is one of those idiotic phrases that people mindlessly repeat because: 1. They’re catchy; and 2. Famous people have said them. In this case, that would be Gandhi, though most people nowadays think it came from Martin Luther King Jr.
The saying would only be valid in a world in which either everyone were equally guilty of at least two outrages (murders?), or in which vendettas ran without end, neither of which is the case … yet.
The concept of an eye for an eye is the foundation of all morality and law. It presupposes both equality and proportionality. Those who attack it, claiming to speak for some “higher” morality, would destroy all morality, and leave using the state of nature. The alternatives are typically of the form ‘no eye for an eye,’ or ‘1,000 eyes for an eye.’
In the West today, one typically hears variations on ‘no eye for an eye’ (Gandhi), which means that evildoers get a free pass. You folks need to explain yourselves, which I’ve never heard any of you do.
But suppose someone argued that Mai was calling for the suspect to get a fair trial. But that has nothing to do with her statement about “an eye for an eye.” If you don’t believe in an eye for an eye, why bother with a trial? As idiotic as Gandhi’s statement was, Mai outdoes him, by embedding it with an incongruent notion.
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/
Mai’s statement is still there.
• Ashley Lewis
“This is sad but ppl need to stop f$%n wit ppl..bc u never knw how much an individual can take”
N.S.: You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. The only thing sad to you is that this racist maniac is in trouble. No one messed with him, he messed with them. In taking his side, you expose yourself as a racist maniac, as well.
[The censors removed Lewis’ comment and mine.]
No comments:
Post a Comment