Jump to content


mav1234

Member Since 18 Oct 2009
Offline Last Active Private
-----

#3140975 Bears benching Cutler, starting Clausen

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 08:20 PM

Man I hope Jimmy balls out.  Good luck Pickles, I'll always be grateful to you for giving us Cam.




#3140609 why are so many atheists retarded in the modern era?

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 03:15 PM

Mav you need to be non atheist mav instead of atheist mav.

 

Maybe I'm both Mavs.  Simultaneously.  As a possibilian.  




#3140342 Breaking: US and Cuba seek to normalise ties

Posted by mav1234 on Yesterday, 12:22 PM

About damn time.  Good for Obama.




#3139190 Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

Posted by mav1234 on 16 December 2014 - 12:39 PM

It wasn't a matter of me not answering as much as you were just over thinking what I said.

 

is this Pstall for "it didn't mean anything at all and was just nonsense?"  At this point it doesn't matter.

 

 

In fact you never addressed rodeo generalizing but somehow thought I was.

 
actually I said in a previous post I didn't think you were generalizing and I still don't, so I am unsure what the point of this comment is.  RE: Rodeo, I didn't even notice his post until you called attention to it with your comments, and I didn't interpret it as generalizing all Christians would turn to terror, just that Christian terrorism would increase if what he said happened... which I completely agree with.  While this is a generalization, sure, I don't think it is insulting; Maybe I am putting words in his mouth but I suspect he meant "certain groups of Christianity."   The thing is, the topic of this thread was specifically related to Muslims which is why I wanted to turn the discussion back to them. I think at some point the parallels to Christianity are inadequate, though it is important to keep in mind what has shaped our point of view and allows us to get to where we are.
 
 
 

I already said multiple times it was a subset of Islam and not thr overall. 

 

When I was prompting the question, and it wasn't just to you, you hadn't clearly stated that.  The question was not also meant to be specifically to you, and I've apologized if you took it that way in past posts already.  My questions were more general to the thread as a whole.

 

The reasons are many for the violence. Just saying its to respond to the US and what they have done is lazy. You have leaders in the ME who would rather it's people focus on the West as the enemy instead of them seeing their leaders as the problem. Divide and conquer etc.
No innovation outside of living on oil for manu countries has bred desolation and frustration.
Other countries have done better at developing.
There is no one single answer unfortunately.

 

I feel that the US thing is a strawman.  Nobody thinks that the only reason this is happening is because it is a response to the US.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the history of the region and the way those ideas can take root.  I think even wealthy people can feel powerless on a geopolitical level.  I don't know the solution there.  There is a lot going on in this region. I do think that stabilizing the situation in Palestine is critical to long-term stability of the region, but that seems to be increasingly impossible.

 

I agree that just saying "well Christians would/have/can/did do it too" isn't really helpful.  Neither is it helpful to claim Islam itself is more violent.

 

I think that it is important to try to see where these people are coming from, as Nanuq and Philly have tried to highlight.   DDII brings up important implications of the way many of these countries were treated by the West that we must consider.  

 

I agree there is no single answer. Which is why I was prompting questions. 




#3138664 Saudi Arabia is responsible for global oil war

Posted by mav1234 on 16 December 2014 - 12:40 AM

I read a lot of random sources, including what shows up on Google News' aggregations as this will net me WSJ and Economist pieces, but I also follow Krugman's blog on NYTs as I've read some of his books.  Krugman is def. the guy I follow most often (and Philly I think you'd like his stuff, too).

 

I look for the NYT Business Section when there's a physical paper nearby.  I like Robert Frank's work (but he's more of an academic, not even sure if he has a blog), and I occasionally try and fail to keep up with John Taylor's blog, as well.

 

I really don't have time to follow economics at the level I'd like, so I tend to stay out of such discussions the majority of the time - which is funny considering it is one of the areas of study I hav the most formal education in, haha.  I think I know enough to know I don't keep up enough to weigh in on most topics accurately (not that that stops most of us from contributing to the Tbox ;) )




#3138653 Do you have any confidence in ATL to beat NO?

Posted by mav1234 on 16 December 2014 - 12:27 AM

I really don't.

 

I also have zero confidence in this team taking care of business.  Question my fanhood if you really want, but I completely expect us to blow something in the next two weeks because that is just how this season has been. :\




#3138643 Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

Posted by mav1234 on 16 December 2014 - 12:15 AM

The bolded part was in reference to rodeo talking about Christians resorting to terror (which I think qualifies as generalizing) if/ when the US were to fall apart. Now if you can't distinguish a little fun poke by mentioning Connor from Starbucks I may need to buy you some lavender bath oils so you can find some Zen.

 

Again: What does "Liberals are only happy when all the people they claim to care about start coming for them." even mean?  This has nothing to do with, as far as I can tell, the US falling apart in any direct connection.

 

Of course you were poking fun.  You always are whenever you say something strange or dumb.  I should have figured.

 

 

And you are correct in your assertion about a sect instead of the entire religion. Which I never said the entire religion was whacked.

 

The second half of my post had nothing to do with you, it was more a question to the thread, because while you never said the whole religion was whack, people certainly have (see Heel's post right after mine).  I apologize for quoting you and actually asking an on topic question in the same post; the two sections of my post were meant to be divided by the "ok back on topic" and not related to your quote. :P

 

 

Now back to your drivel at the start. For whatever reason some of you keep bringing up the independent thing when it's you guys that keep going to that the way a Korean War vet goes to Old Milwaukee. I don't "wail" on about it. Define wailing within a message board. What constitutes that? Is there a posting ratio I'm unaware of?

 

edit: nevermind, not worth it.  You can be as independent and free a thinker as you wish. :P

 

So you quickly latch onto a dig at a liberal (again poking fun) and correcting me on generalizing when the statement I was referring to was ITSELF a generalization. Am I missing something here as well?

 
Yes, that the two parts of the posts were not directly related, hence the "back on topic" comment.

 




#3138581 Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

Posted by mav1234 on 15 December 2014 - 11:24 PM

Oh and about how the Christians would turn to terrorism if the US collapsed. You better believe the libs would lose their noodle if Connor at Starbucks could no longer make them a soy latte or they can't read David Sedaris on their Kindle fire HD. Liberals are only happy when all the people they claim to care about start coming for them.
I have always said civil unrest and most Americans inability to be patient or help others when the cacao hits the fan scares me more than anything else.

 

man Pstall, you look more and more like a party hack every day. You wail about how much of an independent you are, but you take every opportunity to bitch about "the liberals" lately, throwing retarded generalizations and stupid statements like you're running out of time to post all the crazy bullshit that floats around in your head.  What the heck does the bolded statement even MEAN?

 

back on topic... if Islam is so likely to breed individual terrorists and it is the religion and nothing else, why exactly does it seem like this level of Muslim extremism is a relatively new phenomenon?  The religion itself is certainly not young, though a given take on it may be.  Could it be that instead of the religion itself being evil in one way or another, a certain sect of individuals has arise that can take advantage of other situations present in certain countries that allows them to convert people to extremism?




#3137402 Why are so many Muslims violent in the modern era?

Posted by mav1234 on 15 December 2014 - 01:58 PM

The rest of the world may have been asking similar questions during the Crusades.  Actually, probably not, since that was just how the world was back then.

 

But seriously, I think any religion can be twisted by extremists.  Perhaps Islam is easier to twist than some others, but I am skeptical of this; I am much more inclined to think this is the result of socioeconomic conditions in those countries, mixed with political realities and power dynamics that the United States has helped to create between the west and other parts of the world.  I feel that people that think they are powerless are far more likely to turn to violence. But maybe I'm wrong.




#3136413 Explain to me why Jim Harbaugh may get canned

Posted by mav1234 on 14 December 2014 - 10:49 PM

This is crazy to me.  It seemed like Harbaugh would burn himself out at some point soon, but firing him after this season is insane.




#3136210 The story of Robert Bryant and Jason Klonowski

Posted by mav1234 on 14 December 2014 - 09:09 PM

None of this would happen if they had just respected police authority. Or something


#3136208 Time To Set The Record Straight.

Posted by mav1234 on 14 December 2014 - 09:08 PM

Name changes don't hide the truth.


#3132471 Football Gameplan's 2014 Wk 15 Preview - Panthers vs Bucs

Posted by mav1234 on 13 December 2014 - 07:55 PM

Thanks Mav!  

 

We're working on a way to serve 2 communities with that. We're going to have some website specific analysis in addition to what we do on youtube.  We do post both the videos on the FBGP website...but we're also looking to add FBGP website specific film session telestrator videos that'll be within an article. Is that what you're speaking of?

 

Also...there's way too much plagiarism going on with a lot of these football sites, which has caused us to pause on writing articles for a stretch but with the way we're planning to do it moving forward, it'll make it 'harder' to completely do so

 

I was looking for more written articles - for instance, it'd let you revisit how the first bit of this preview might be different with DA compared to Cam, whereas that's quite hard to do given the first segment is taped.

 

And sorry to hear about plagiarism... I can understand why that'd pause written content and totally understand.




#3132393 Football Gameplan's 2014 Wk 15 Preview - Panthers vs Bucs

Posted by mav1234 on 13 December 2014 - 07:06 PM

Keep 'em coming, Em.  Don't worry about the trolls.

 

As an aside, some of us do browse from work frequently and can't always look at videos.  Have you considered putting up a text version of your breakdowns, maybe with some screencaps?  I like your work but I sometimes forget to watch on YT since I'm at work half the time I find them (yes, I work weekends most weeks).

 

I understand getting youtube hits is important for you, but I like your analysis and can't always view it due to work.  Just an idea.  :)

 

Thanks again!




#3132287 WSJ: US Jobs report shows best year since 1999

Posted by mav1234 on 13 December 2014 - 04:09 PM

So for question 1, according to the Bill of Rights, these can be evaluated for validity if the government decides to care?

Question 3, what qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment?  What was the reason for this being included?

Question 5, the Bill of Rights was not laid out as a junction of settling disputes between private entities.  It was about setting rules on those things that government can't take away from American citizens.  How does this figure?

Question 6, interesting that this is the topic they choose to use for example.  Any eyebrows raised if these are brought up for protesting drone strikes or military funerals?

Question 7, the right to bear arms only applies to persons that have property to protect?

Question 9, again... interesting that this is where the test makers choose to get topical.

Question 13, though alluded to in several places, where is the word privacy invoked in the Bill of Rights?  Also, technically not true in a NUMBER of cases in application today.  This is the basis for which many a fallicious line of reasoning has rested.

Question 14, again, interesting phrasing for this scenario.  American Rights is not a function of whether you exist on the land space, but whether or not you are a citizen.  Do I have personal problems with this?  Absolutely, but to pose the question like this is the pre-suppose that anyone that lives in America is afforded American rights.  Criminals have these rights taken away because they are no longer considered law-abiding citizens.  Illegal immigrants are not American Citizens.  General Rights may come into discussion as a matter of ethics and humane treatment, but as a matter of law, the Bill of Rights are pretty clear.

 

That you can look through this test and think that there's nothing wrong says plenty about how civics and the supposed educational system has failed you.

 

While some of the language on the questions is dubious (esp. #7 which implies causation to the carrying of money.  Better wording would be, "The postman wanted to carry a gun <could add in a statement of reason for why he did> and was legally allowed to."), you are being a little extreme on some of the others.  This is an exercise for 3rd-5th graders, and that context provides a lot of explanation for some of the language, IMO.   

 

Not to be nitpicky myself, but you are absolutely wrong that the 6th amendment only applies to citizens - admittedly this comes into territory of the 14th - and there are exceptions to the 6th amendment worth discussing, but that kind of discussion is something that should occur in a civics class later than elementary school.  I would argue it is an excellent idea to introduce the bill of rights early to students, but deal with the specifics and exceptions later, as one should do in regards to how the 14th and 6th interact.






Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com