News Cain Velasquez arrested on a charge of attempted murder for shooting at his relatives molester

[Iroh]

You can read the thing I quoted again (and the guys following irrelevant Nieztsche rant I took out) if you have difficulty understanding. If the guy compared the to a wild animal, you'd have a point, but he didn't.

He called a dude wjo went on a revkless rampage wild....

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

He called a dude wjo went on a revkless rampage wild....

He didn't say Cain went wild ya dope. He said people are normally domesticated, but Cain, a human being, is a wild animal, as an excuse for his decision making. Then posted an insane philosophical rant about freedom and liberal institutions.

There is a difference between saying, "Any normal people could go crazy on that situation" vs "Normal people don't, but Cain Velasquez did cuz he's a wild animal, and that's fine."

 

[Iroh]

He didn't say Cain went wild ya dope. He said people are normally domesticated, but Cain, a human being, is a wild animal, as an excuse for his decision making. Then posted an insane philosophical rant about freedom and liberal institutions.

There is a difference between saying, "Any normal people could go crazy on that situation" vs "Normal people don't, but Cain Velasquez did cuz he's a wild animal, and that's fine."

Not an excuse, but a reason why people react differently. Which is pretty apt, IMO. Fighters very often have a wild, violent side to them. That's a big part of what makes them fighters. I think you took it the wrong way, bud.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Not an excuse, but a reason why people react differently. Which is pretty apt, IMO. Fighters very often have a wild, violent side to them. That's a big part of what makes them fighters. I think you took it the wrong way, bud.

No. There's different tones people can say the same thing in. You're a reasonable person, so you're trying to take a reasonable take on something that, in text alone, out of context with all the other bullshit, makes sense (And even if we were to take this position, it would mean that your first thing saying that he did it in an emotional response to the philia is kinda out the window). But when strung together and put in the context of the other posts, revealing some insight behind the text..

"People are animals" - check. That works for me on some biological scale.
"People react crazily to emotional situations." Again fine. Like you said, people react differently.
"Different people react differently to the same situations, so not everyone will react that way." - Psych 101. Very sensible.
"We are held down a bit by systems." -Still ok. I mean, I'd agree, but I'd want to know why the person's saying it. And a little off-brand for the conversation before, but there's certainly a reasonable way those thoughts can be connec-
"We are all trapped animals in our cages of institutionalized liberalism, and the only ones who will break free are the wilder animals among us who make the right decision to break out of their cage to lash out" is and should be worrisome.
Uh-oh, it's Dr. time.

 

[Iroh]

No. There's different tones people can say the same thing in. You're a reasonable person, so you're trying to take a reasonable take on something that, in text alone, out of context with all the other bullshit, makes sense (And even if we were to take this position, it would mean that your first thing saying that he did it in an emotional response to the philia is kinda out the window).

Yeah, but I have seen people suggest that several more times and I think you might have been one of them, but could be wrong about that. So it was more a general statement, not specifically with that one post in mind.

"People are animals" - check. That works for me on some biological scale.
"People react crazily to emotional situations." Again fine. Like you said, people react differently.
"Different people react differently to the same situations, so not everyone will react that way." - Psych 101. Very sensible.
"We are held down a bit by systems." -Still ok. I mean, I'd agree, but I'd want to know why the person's saying it. And a little off-brand for the conversation before, but there's certainly a reasonable way those thoughts can be connec-
"We are all trapped animals in our cages of institutionalized liberalism, and the only ones who will break free are the wilder animals among us who make the right decision to break out of their cage to lash out" is and should be worrisome.
Uh-oh, it's Dr. time.

We are trapped in our cages, but it's not really institutionalized liberalism. That's part of it, but it's much bigger than that. And if you have to break free, you indeed need to get over a certain threshold that holds people in general back. (BTW, this is all just metaphor, so the connetation with the word "animal" should be limited to the purpose of the metaphor. For example you earlier suggested calling the an animal, that has a different connetation and shouldn't be conflated.) And Cain did indeed do that to a certain extend, but he definitely didn't do it the right way. But when you're fuming with rage it's hard to do things the smart and most efficient way. It wasn't the right decision. But it's an understandable decision. Trusting in the legal system that has proven to not deal properly with s in past instances is also not really the right decision. People on both sides of this discussion are way too assuming and not really wanting to wait for more information or maybe do the research themselves. They just want to tell everybody what they think is the right way of viewing this all, but I think we don't really have nearly enough information to speak with any certainty on what is the right way to go about this all besides waiting for more info.

But even then, if he was out of line with his opinion, that's really not anything that needs psychiatric intervention. It's just a difference in opinion. Characterizing people you disagree with as crazy doesn't do anything that conduces to a better discussion. It prevents you from really understanding where the person is coming from and in turn prevents you from making convincing arguments to show him where you are coming from.

 

[Trabaho]

I'm agnostic, I defend the justice system, and I was never in a biker gang. You're thinking of the bandidos, but you can't spell.

Yeah?


Remember the prophet Elijah? And how he had a son Elisha who had 'double the power' and 'preformed twice as many miracles' as Elijah, because the bible is an early version of the worst fanfic?
Well as Elisha traveled to Bethel, small boys came from the city to mock him saying "Go up, baldy! Go up, you baldhead!" So Elisha cursed them and God sent two she-bears from the woods to maul 42 of the kids. It's II Kings 2: 23-24



I don't disbelief in God (I certainly know the bible's a bunch of horseshit, but that doesn't automatically disprove a god), I just think it doesn't matter.

I was a Christian for many years myself. I was raised on the morals, but they also just felt common sense to me. I live by the same teachings, and not to brag, but after having first hand seen the 'generosity' and 'love' of the people who call themselves Christians, I have no issue ranking myself as better at it, and I find it no wonder that charitable efforts are usually higher from atheists. And I felt that, if I was to live by the very teachings of Jesus when it came to the treatment of your fellow man, and if I could find thanks and guidance in the comfort of my own home, then I should not need to do so in the house of an institution with centuries of documented corruption. And if I were to be a good man and find that a god said I lived his rules but could not come to heaven in the end because I wasn't lauding him, then it's not a god worth lauding. So again, it doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, I think the people (unfortunately many of them) who think the bible is necessary to have those kinds of morals, and that you must do good in order to avoid punishment are the ones who do not deserve a reward, because they only do so in order to avoid punishment. Anyone who legitimately asks "Why wouldn't you just rape and kill all you want if there wasn't this truth in the bible and a god?" scares the hell out of me and should scare the hell out of anyone, because those are people whose morals dangle on the precipice. That is a dangerous person held in check by a question of fear, instead of righteousness.

Atheists don't disbelieve in something greater and grander than their understanding. The universe is full of it's own awe without the thought of a being above it. And there can be justice in this world, because there is a justice among us.


That I do appreciate, and cheers to you too. Please don't mix my mockery of certain thoughts for a dislike of the people who have them. Again, that was still me for my own decade or two.
And hey, my job is mostly helping addicts, so I get the struggle. Best of luck with it.

Mmmm I never read a page In the bible I simply am from a Christian background.

I do believe in God however.


Why does your name say Bandido?

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Mmmm I never read a page In the bible I simply am from a Christian background.

I do believe in God however.


Why does your name say Bandido?

I was raised super Catholic, so it was reading more of the insane parts of the bible that turned me away from Catholicism at first, but not immediately God. For a while, I was just anti-church, but the longer I just lived a good charitable life, the longer I thought the subject of God was only gonna be an issue once I passed. (Again, doesn't need to be active disbelief, it's just that it won't matter til it does). I mean, I suppose I could still pray for stuff, but if God's got a plan, then it'll just happen. He's not unaware of what I want or need, so praying for something different than his works seems a bit arrogant in the face of his omnipotence.

I was really big on mohawks (before that whole, 'needing to get hired' thing happened in my life like it does to us all) which can usually come paired with your usual post apocalyptic fictions like Mad Max or Borderlands (see the avatar), or whatever wasteland bandits you may encounter in similar worlds. Problem was, most of my 'tags' usually include my nickname "Ace," and I figured "Ace Bandit" was just a little too close to "Ass Bandit" for my liking.

And if I can explain my own irritability: I mean, I'm already kind of a nonce on here for a history of debate team shenanigans mixed with my general elitist attitude towards the sport, but currently, I got a medical thing goin on right now that's caused 24/7 pain for over 2 months now, and I'm not getting anymore than 4 hours sleep per pop. So I think I've been a bit more on edge lately but

 

[RockyLockridge]

Yeah, I'm so enraged I'm fuming over here. How will I recover? I can't hold the hands of dummies anymore, you've had this whole thing spelt out for you the entire time. I guess go back to a GOAT thread or something that is more along your lines of perception.

you sound super mad.

 

[TempleoftheDog]

hope you don't have kids

It’s a good thing to hope that parents are clear thinking educated people. That guy said nothing wrong. The law is the law and must be allowed to run it’s course.

The thought of attempting to murder someone that hasn’t been convicted of anything, while endangering hundreds or thousands of people is insane. You are the one I pray NEVER has kids.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I wish I knew you in real life.

 

[FaTaL FaTaL]

This thread really has taken a turn for the worse

 

[milliniar]

This thread really has taken a turn for the worse

I couldn't tell this thread has been a shitshow since the beginning. Almost anyone who has defended the legal system has somehow been crowned as defending s.

 

[Yep]

This thread really has taken a turn for the worse

This thread was always a one way highway to the worse.

 

[Trabaho]

I was raised super Catholic, so it was reading more of the insane parts of the bible that turned me away from Catholicism at first, but not immediately God. For a while, I was just anti-church, but the longer I just lived a good charitable life, the longer I thought the subject of God was only gonna be an issue once I passed. (Again, doesn't need to be active disbelief, it's just that it won't matter til it does). I mean, I suppose I could still pray for stuff, but if God's got a plan, then it'll just happen. He's not unaware of what I want or need, so praying for something different than his works seems a bit arrogant in the face of his omnipotence.

I was really big on mohawks (before that whole, 'needing to get hired' thing happened in my life like it does to us all) which can usually come paired with your usual post apocalyptic fictions like Mad Max or Borderlands (see the avatar), or whatever wasteland bandits you may encounter in similar worlds. Problem was, most of my 'tags' usually include my nickname "Ace," and I figured "Ace Bandit" was just a little too close to "Ass Bandit" for my liking.

And if I can explain my own irritability: I mean, I'm already kind of a nonce on here for a history of debate team shenanigans mixed with my general elitist attitude towards the sport, but currently, I got a medical thing goin on right now that's caused 24/7 pain for over 2 months now, and I'm not getting anymore than 4 hours sleep per pop. So I think I've been a bit more on edge lately but

God speed. Take care. Heal up.

 

[Small Town Andrew]

What if it comes out that this was innocent all along and Cains son was lying.

He would really feel stupid. It's going to be a long time before he sees the outside or a jail cell

 

[xXxGhost89xXx]

What if it comes out that this was innocent all along and Cains son was lying.

He would really feel stupid. It's going to be a long time before he sees the outside or a jail cell

Sounds like you hope the is innocent. . .

 

[Joshuaace]

Sounds like you hope the is innocent. . .

I do! That would mean there was 1 or more fewer children that were not the victim of a sexual predator.

Are you hoping Goularte is guilty?

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Sounds like you hope the is innocent. . .

In a society of "innocent until proven guilty," if you respond this way to someone asking "what if he's innocent," then maybe you're the one assuming, and maybe even hoping for guilt. Wouldn't the best outcome be: A child wasn't molested? Shouldn't that be a good thing? Cuz then we're not talking about terrible trauma?

Also, I probably should remind you of the very obvious logical conclusion that, if he is innocent, that would suggest he isn't a . Think before you speak.

This is exactly why this type of accusation ruins lives. Although someone might say what you said, but with the words "found innocent" for other charges, no one would go, "I bet you hope the murderer is innocent," because obviously then, they're not a murderer. But to you, he's already a , regardless of guilt.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I do! That would mean there was 1 or more fewer children that were not the victim of a sexual predator.

Are you hoping Goularte is guilty?

I asked before in this thread and i'll ask again, cuz no one answered and I'm confused. I know there's accusations of him doing it to many children, but from what I read, it's still the one accuser. 'He did this to me. Over 100 times. And he's taken a lot of other kids to the bathroom too.'

More accusers would certainly turn my suspicions immediately, but if it's found that those thoughts are manifested, aren't they all then?

 

[Mike]

I couldn't tell this thread has been a shitshow since the beginning. Almost anyone who has defended the legal system has somehow been crowned as defending s.

It's hard to have a conversation about anything that involves nuance on sherdog.