Return to “Finally, a CHLer is portrayed as the victim”
There is no topic for anyone to get back on. This thread should have been locked weeks ago when it became a place for members to hurl non-topic related personal attacks.WildBill wrote:Come on people. Please get back on topic or start another post relating to a CHL-related subject.
Yep, I have a unapologetic prejudice against those who blow up children and women and sever the heads of people for the sole purpose of religious hatred. I certainly won't insult you by suggesting that you are unaware of the distinction of "radical"; I will simply apologise to you and anyone else who is offended by my opinion of radical Islam. I sincerely hope there are others here who share my prejudice.tacticool wrote:Your religious prejudice is duly noted.Embalmo wrote:I was called a radical Muslim, which I consider to be the most hideous, vile personal attack one can make to another.
Normally I can/do let things just roll off, but when it comes to being compared to an entity that we are currently fighting a war against and an entity that is killing our soldiers, no I can't just let that go. I guarantee that my grandfather wouldn't have just "let go" being called a Nazi during WWII. As I said before I'm here because of the high standards. There is really nothing else for me to say.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You just won't quit, will you. When I said "equally mad" I mean as mad are you were when you sent me the PM. You described yourself as "fuming" and my reference was to your anger, not the other poster's anger.Embalmo wrote:Yes, equally mad, so equally agreeing with the Taliban comment/sentiment....in that context would have most women equally mad at you.
Here is the PM you sent:
Can we now stop airing what once was a private communication?Emblamo wrote:I've been called a woman hating muslim extremist and I amd fuming. Will you please erase this extraordinary personal attack against me?
Thank you,
Embalmo
Chas.
Yes, equally mad, so equally agreeing with the Taliban comment/sentiment....in that context would have most women equally mad at you.
Embalmo2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.
3. No racial or ethnic slurs. Descriptions of persons in actual events are fine, so long as it doesn't constitute stereotyping.
bdickens wrote:I did, but my favorite moderator deleted my post because I was engaging in "personal attacks." I suppose if I only attacked people who can't be here to defend themselves, that would be okay.Oldgringo wrote:What you either failed, or chose not, to see was TAM's most eloquent and to the point commentary of Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:02 pm on this most unfortunate incident . After you have read TAM's post, please come back and elaborate on the "sanctimonious armchair quarterbacking" that bothers you so greatly.bdickens wrote:What I see is a whole lot of sanctimonious armchair quarterbacking, including implied smears against the character of the two young ladies in the linked Chronicle article who were the victims of a horrible ordeal.
EmbalmoWorded like a disapproving Mullah.
"behaving" is a rather revealing word choice.
As for their being out and about past a time you or anyone else seems to think inappropriate for young women, rings of a Taliban-like perspective regarding women in general.
If you think it's wise behavior, encourage the women, men, and children in your life to BEHAVE this way. I'm gonna' discourage such practice in my household. Unsubscribing.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.AFAIK, The Fed hasn't outlawed the free movement of an individual in our country, however; rape and kidnapping have been outlawed for a long, long time. For some reason though, the two victims are continually accused of the wrong doing here.
Hmm. 2 women in their 20s driving around in a bad neighborhood at 2:30 AM. Can't think of any additional information that would turn that scenario into a good idea. Frankly I'm surprised that such a sentiment would stir any controversy.bdickens wrote:There sure is a lot of conjecture and impugning of two ladies' character and motivations by people who have scant information about them or the situation they were in.
KD5NRH wrote:Not since the last draft, they don't.Embalmo wrote:Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to.
Yep, and soldiers get in front of bullets because they have to. The point is that it's irresponsible to put oneself at risk unnecessarily.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:My wife does it at least 14 days a month, she gets off shift at 3:30am 7 days a month and goes to work at 3:30 7 days a month, she often stops for coffee. She is always in the rag top. She can not legally carry into the gate at work in her car so she is always unarmed to and from work. While I agree she may be at a higher risk than I am, I do not consider this behaviour irresponsable or negligent.Kevinf2349 wrote:But would you let your wife do it? (unarmed)
Whether it is PC or not men and women are different, the dangers and the type of predators are different, If you think that it is wise and safe to let your wife drive a convertable to a drive-thru at 02:30 in the monring, that is your choice. I am not denying you that choice, all I am saying is that the danger level of doing that is high.
You obviously see on harm any of your family female members taking higher risk situations, I do for my family. I have total trust in my family, but it is the other people I am weary of.
Mind your words-You might be labeled as the next sexist radical Muslim on this thread.Kevinf2349 wrote:But would you let your wife do it? (unarmed)
Whether it is PC or not men and women are different, the dangers and the type of predators are different, If you think that it is wise and safe to let your wife drive a convertable to a drive-thru at 02:30 in the monring, that is your choice. I am not denying you that choice, all I am saying is that the danger level of doing that is high.
You obviously see on harm any of your family female members taking higher risk situations, I do for my family. I have total trust in my family, but it is the other people I am weary of.
Unfortunately we live in a world where that is correct. Because women are much more likely to be attacked and perceived as easy prey, women must be more careful; that is why I believe that every eligible women should concealed carry to even out the playing field. And I don't want to hear any liberal idealism about in a perfect world women and men should be allowed to equally walk alone in a park at night or jog in a secluded area-None of us live in that perfect world.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:So, what may be construed as irresponsible behaviour for a young female may be rational behaviour for a young male?
Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're going to be newly gone too, if you don't change your attitude. Read the rules before you post again.Techbrute wrote:Give me a break. I'm new to this forum, can someone let me know if everyone is this judgmental and paranoid?
Chas.
(you know, those guys who are killing our servicemen in Afghanistan) Just seems a little sensitive to me considering that we are at war with the Taliban.Yes it was their behavior that was unwise. It was their behavior that got them into a dangerous situation. And behaving differently would have kept the situation from occurring to them in the first place. Being out at that hour is dangerous for anyone, but it is especially dangerous for young people and women as they are considerably more vulnerable to attacks. I absolutely welcome any information that would refute these claims. Quite honestly I'm tired of explaining the difference between bad behavior and irresponsible, risky behavior.Abraham wrote:"Would you be comfortable with your wife, girlfriend, daughter, sister, mother
behaving as these women did?"
Wow!
Worded like a disapproving Mullah.
"behaving" is a rather revealing word choice.
As for their being out and about past a time you or anyone else seems to think inappropriate for young women, rings of a Taliban-like perspective regarding women in general.
If, you care to criticize their poor situational awareness or lack of street smarts, that might be a reasonable argument applicable to all genders, but, criticizing them with words like their "behavior" is revealing of a paternalistic/disapproving attitude towards women - to say the least.
Buying food late at night isn't indicative of bad behavior.
I think what you're missing here is that that driving during rush hour and leaving one's house is not a foolish, unnecessary act. Would you be comfortable with your wife, girlfriend, daughter, sister, mother behaving as these women did? This is about taking responsibility for one's own actions and blaming no one else for one's consequences. As I mentioned before, personal responsibility is a bedrock principle of concealed carry.KD5NRH wrote:So I guess all those idiots who drive during rush hour are just begging to die in wrecks. Not to mention the ones who leave their homes unoccupied during the day; they must want to be victims of burglars.Embalmo wrote:Not once have the victims been blamed for the crime on this thread. The victims have been, however, blamed for, and are guilty of, choosing to engage in irresponsible risky behavior.