hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Some young men "stole" two sea lion pups out here. One was recovered, and his face, stance, just break my heart. He looks at the camera with a "the hell?" face. Poor little sweetie, must be so scared, wanting to be in his natural environment.
Search is on for the second one missing.
These assholes harrassed these little creatures, tossed one in the trunk of their car.
What could possibly possess someone to do this? Would love to administer several swift kicks to the asses of the assholes who did this.
Some young men "stole" two sea lion pups out here. One was recovered, and his face, stance, just break my heart. He looks at the camera with a "the hell?" face. Poor little sweetie, must be so scared, wanting to be in his natural environment.
Search is on for the second one missing.
These assholes harrassed these little creatures, tossed one in the trunk of their car.
What could possibly possess someone to do this? Would love to administer several swift kicks to the asses of the assholes who did this.
Some young men "stole" two sea lion pups out here. One was recovered, and his face, stance, just break my heart. He looks at the camera with a "the hell?" face. Poor little sweetie, must be so scared, wanting to be in his natural environment.
Search is on for the second one missing.
These assholes harrassed these little creatures, tossed one in the trunk of their car.
What could possibly possess someone to do this? Would love to administer several swift kicks to the asses of the assholes who did this.
Maybe this should be the idiot / asshole thread.
Swift kick to the asses, shit hedonist, straight kick them in the balls.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Oh fuck me...they bludgeoned the pups' mother with a cinderblock. The little one they showed (safe) put up a fight and got away; his brother/sister is missing and likely not to survive if these pieces of shit hold onto him.
Stories like this just hit me in the gut and heart.
Oh fuck me...they bludgeoned the pups' mother with a cinderblock. The little one they showed (safe) put up a fight and got away; his brother/sister is missing and likely not to survive if these pieces of shit hold onto him.
Stories like this just hit me in the gut and heart.
Some young men "stole" two sea lion pups out here. One was recovered, and his face, stance, just break my heart. He looks at the camera with a "the hell?" face. Poor little sweetie, must be so scared, wanting to be in his natural environment.
Search is on for the second one missing.
These assholes harrassed these little creatures, tossed one in the trunk of their car.
What could possibly possess someone to do this? Would love to administer several swift kicks to the asses of the assholes who did this.
Oh fuck me...they bludgeoned the pups' mother with a cinderblock. The little one they showed (safe) put up a fight and got away; his brother/sister is missing and likely not to survive if these pieces of shit hold onto him.
Stories like this just hit me in the gut and heart.
future serial killers. catch them and throw the book at them.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
You know what kills me? I don't know if they were teens or adults - yet apparently old enough to drive - but there were two females and two males. Not one of them tried to stop the others, said "screw this, I'm outta here" or had second thoughts afterward?
No conscience on their part, not the least bit of empathy from me.
You know what kills me? I don't know if they were teens or adults - yet apparently old enough to drive - but there were two females and two males. Not one of them tried to stop the others, said "screw this, I'm outta here" or had second thoughts afterward?
No conscience on their part, not the least bit of empathy from me.
maybe one or more of them did. but the bystander effect is real, and very difficult to overcome.
Woman Texted "Driving drunk woo" Minutes Before Fatal DUI Crash
Just three minutes before allegedly causing an accident that killed her passenger, a 22-year-old old Florida woman reportedly texted her boyfriend, “Driving drunk woo …” and “Ill be dead thanks to you ….” The woman, Mila Dago, had a blood alcohol level of .178 two hours after the crash, according to police.
Dago was, according to prosecutors, in the middle of a break-up on Aug. 14, 2013 and had been texting her boyfriend throughout the night. The last text was sent just before Dago and her friend, 22-year old Irina Reinoso, got behind the wheel of a rented Smart Car.
At about 4:45 am, Dago allegedly barreled through a red light and t-boned a truck driven by Benjamin Byrum, who escaped with only minor injuries.
“The Smart Car is what saved me,” Byrum told the Miami Herald. “If it had been anything bigger, I would have been in trouble.”
Dago also survived, but Reinoso “showed no signs of life,” according to court transcripts obtained by the Herald, and was pronounced dead at the scene.
A responding officer said Dago smelled of alcohol; blood tests later showed her blood alcohol level to be .178, more than twice the limit in Florida.
Dago has pleaded not guilty to DUI manslaughter, and two counts of DUI with damage to a person, and vehicular homicide.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
which makes me wonder.....is there some kind of law against goading people into this? I mean, if it can be proven (eye/earwitness testimony) that people were planning on some muslims to show up and waste them, could that be considered premeditated murder?
which makes me wonder.....is there some kind of law against goading people into this? I mean, if it can be proven (eye/earwitness testimony) that people were planning on some muslims to show up and waste them, could that be considered premeditated murder?
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Perfect placement for this. I thought about starting a thread too before deciding, "Nah." Didn't remember this thread. Perfect for these idiots on both sides.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
When I meant criminal in nature, I wasn't literally meaning criminal... I meant that it was reckless with the intention of provoking a fight. This was clear given the high attention to security measures.
Was there a point other than to rub caricatures of Mohammed in Muslim's faces?
With that said... regardless of the offence taken... it's extreme to the point of ridiculousness that someone feels the need to end someone's life over a fucking cartoon no matter what it intends to do.
It's debatable as to who is the bigger idiot- a really debatable question.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I am no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I'm interested in knowing your take on him. I have seen all of his cartoons related to Islam and have seen all the general news about him, but haven't kept informed on deeper details.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
And go ahead and paint/draw any pictures u want of Mohammed. No one in Islam knows what he looked like so whatever.
Probably looked like any average dude if that's the case. It boggles my mind why anyone would give a crap if someone made a picture of him. And it boggles X1000 times my mind that someone would want to kill another human for drawing a picture of him.
What if the drawing looked like Ryan Reynolds? That's not too shabby.
And go ahead and paint/draw any pictures u want of Mohammed. No one in Islam knows what he looked like so whatever.
Probably looked like any average dude if that's the case. It boggles my mind why anyone would give a crap if someone made a picture of him. And it boggles X1000 times my mind that someone would want to kill another human for drawing a picture of him.
What if the drawing looked like Ryan Reynolds? That's not too shabby.
Very true Jason. When it comes to Islam, the reason we don't draw pictures or make any sculptures when it comes to Mohammed is because he was just a prophet for God and it's so that he isn't worshipped as idol/God, in example of Jesus and Christians. Hope that makes a little sense. I'm not the best person to be speaking for Islam but I just try to share whatever information I know.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I am no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I'm interested in knowing your take on him. I have seen all of his cartoons related to Islam and have seen all the general news about him, but haven't kept informed on deeper details.
I could give to 2 shits about them or anybody who draws pics for shock value. It doesn't bother me, has no bearing on me whatsoever. But if people are gonna cry over Charlie hebdo and free speech, please go and do some investigating and see if it's all it's cracked up to be when it comes with Charlie hebdo and free speech. Like really look into it.
And go ahead and paint/draw any pictures u want of Mohammed. No one in Islam knows what he looked like so whatever.
Probably looked like any average dude if that's the case. It boggles my mind why anyone would give a crap if someone made a picture of him. And it boggles X1000 times my mind that someone would want to kill another human for drawing a picture of him.
What if the drawing looked like Ryan Reynolds? That's not too shabby.
Very true Jason. When it comes to Islam, the reason we don't draw pictures or make any sculptures when it comes to Mohammed is because he was just a prophet for God and it's so that he isn't worshipped as idol/God, in example of Jesus and Christians. Hope that makes a little sense. I'm not the best person to be speaking for Islam but I just try to share whatever information I know.
I'm cool with the concept, just not the punishment.
Comments
Search is on for the second one missing.
These assholes harrassed these little creatures, tossed one in the trunk of their car.
What could possibly possess someone to do this? Would love to administer several swift kicks to the asses of the assholes who did this.
Maybe this should be the idiot / asshole thread.
These young men fall under both categories.
Stories like this just hit me in the gut and heart.
www.headstonesband.com
No conscience on their part, not the least bit of empathy from me.
www.headstonesband.com
Just three minutes before allegedly causing an accident that killed her passenger, a 22-year-old old Florida woman reportedly texted her boyfriend, “Driving drunk woo …” and “Ill be dead thanks to you ….” The woman, Mila Dago, had a blood alcohol level of .178 two hours after the crash, according to police.
Dago was, according to prosecutors, in the middle of a break-up on Aug. 14, 2013 and had been texting her boyfriend throughout the night. The last text was sent just before Dago and her friend, 22-year old Irina Reinoso, got behind the wheel of a rented Smart Car.
At about 4:45 am, Dago allegedly barreled through a red light and t-boned a truck driven by Benjamin Byrum, who escaped with only minor injuries.
“The Smart Car is what saved me,” Byrum told the Miami Herald. “If it had been anything bigger, I would have been in trouble.”
Dago also survived, but Reinoso “showed no signs of life,” according to court transcripts obtained by the Herald, and was pronounced dead at the scene.
A responding officer said Dago smelled of alcohol; blood tests later showed her blood alcohol level to be .178, more than twice the limit in Florida.
Dago has pleaded not guilty to DUI manslaughter, and two counts of DUI with damage to a person, and vehicular homicide.
And she was driving a Smart Car - the irony.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread.
Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it.
Idiots all around.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really.
You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Was there a point other than to rub caricatures of Mohammed in Muslim's faces?
With that said... regardless of the offence taken... it's extreme to the point of ridiculousness that someone feels the need to end someone's life over a fucking cartoon no matter what it intends to do.
It's debatable as to who is the bigger idiot- a really debatable question.
What if the drawing looked like Ryan Reynolds? That's not too shabby.