Thanks Locke, two caveats though.
One, I have no problem with how they protect the President, I just did not understand how many on the left could be so against some type of security guards in the schools yet still believe the President's daughters benefit from their security detail...it makes no sense to me.
Secondly, my question on the shooters is specifically geared to the way they behave on the day of their action. It makes sense that many, or most of them have been bullied at one time or another, if not constantly. It just seems to me that they seem to almost take on that persona on their "day". They most certainly seem to pick a place where they can kill as many as they can while picking out targets that will not be able to fight back with equal ability. This was taken to the extreme a month ago, and to finsh off my bully theme, as soon as the jig is up (hear police arriving etc.) they have no desire to fight against somebody equally armed, so they off themselves, or give up without a fight (theatre guy).
I could see them temporarily taking on the role of bully while going on their rampage. But the ones who are bullied target the ones who made their lives hell, i.e. Columbine, Virginia Tech. Those shooters went in knowing they weren't coming out, and probably decided beforehand that they weren't going to give law enforcement the satisfaction of taking them down, so they took themselves down. I'm not buying the Aurora shooter as mentally ill or bullied, personally. He doesn't fit either profile. I think he is trying to be sold as mentally ill by his defense, but I'm not buying it personally, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into since it gets convoluted. I think he was a perfectly sane person with sociopathic tendencies who just decided he wanted to go down as a famous villain. I couldn't really know without talking with him, though. Although I think my theory is correct because there has been a curious lack of discussion about him and the shooting from the media, almost like it was on purpose. If that was what he wanted, looks like they are taking it away from him. As for the mentally ill who kill themselves, if they are in a paranoid psychotic episode, it's almost expected that they would kill themselves after deciding that they need to "save" others by killing them. Of course they'd want to save themselves too. That's as simply as I can put it at least...
I hope nobody on here actually hates me, hating someone on a message board seems a bit extreme to me. However, the bad blood with Locke seems to trace back to one incident that I can think of. We were debating the decay rates of organic matter and he challenged me to produce a peer-reviewed article outlying how fast organic matter decays (something I never claimed to possess, but have found since his challenge), however once I pointed out how I never said I had a peer-reviewed article on that subject he went on a monologue about how he is a PhD candidate and he “knew” that all peer-reviewed articles are only available to those who work in university or are currently studying at university so I must obviously have been lying. Of course, after a claim like that I had to point out that anybody can subscribe to peer reviewed journals if they’d like and I linked him to the subscription webpages for both NATURE and SCIENCE which I am sure you are aware are the two most well respected peer-reviewed journals in the world. The funny thing is that he didn’t know they were peer-reviewed journals but thought they were just magazines; I found this a bit odd considering he claimed to be a candidate for a PhD and should have plenty of exposure to the peer-review system (not horribly unlike someone claiming to have a doctorate in English but seeming to not know what a sentence fragment is). I probably rubbed it in a bit hard, but after he was so rude I couldn’t help myself. Ever since then he has dodged most of my posts or has diverted the topic to something inappropriate or completely irrelevant (as you saw in this thread, he claims I am immature but was I really the one acting immature in this thread?).
As for my degrees, I have been completely consistent in what degrees I have and how many I have (only two); I think it just bothers him that someone he disagrees so vehemently with can also be rather well-educated; so that’s the back story behind our relationship. I hope that helps clear things up for you.
Perseverance of the Saints
Their purposeful misinformation regarding your degrees is a weak attempt to discredit you.
“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."
- Dr. Benjamin Carson
You’re absolutely right, rather than address the opposition’s arguments they’d rather take the discussion down rabbit holes and appeal to ridicule. Oh well….
I am not sure why you find that funny. No, reality is not subjective, but facts are interpreted within the framework of someone’s axiomatic belief system, so if you start with an invalid belief system you are going to interpret the facts incorrectly and therefore arrive at invalid conclusions about reality.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life