McKenzie -11yo Girl Field Stripping AR15

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

And your take on the ratio of reported crime the racial breakdown of prison population and the posters on the wall would be?

A range of factors.

[HAL 9000 96]

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Lets stay on the topic of people without slippery arguments.

But on the topics of dogs, sure- why not?

I see you've chosen to avoid my argument over relativism.

Have I?

Like I said... (italicized above for clarity)...

[DeadPoolX 9]

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

Eating dogs is a regional custom. It has nothing to do with common-sense.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Can you justify it?

Eating dogs may be a regional custom, but why? According to some, it's "common sense" that dog is a viable source of food. To others, "common sense" once again dictates that dog is considered a family pet and not dinner.

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

Eating dogs is a regional custom. It has nothing to do with common-sense.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Can you justify it?

Eating dogs may be a regional custom, but why? According to some, it's "common sense" that dog is a viable source of food. To others, "common sense" once again dictates that dog is considered a family pet and not dinner.

But it isn't common sense.

Common sense is "Gee whizz, smoking near this open can of gasoline probably isn't a good idea".

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Well given that you are partial to relativisms - I guess the appropriate response would be:

Some comments are more justifiable than others.

[HAL 9000 96]

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

Eating dogs is a regional custom. It has nothing to do with common-sense.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Can you justify it?

Eating dogs may be a regional custom, but why? According to some, it's "common sense" that dog is a viable source of food. To others, "common sense" once again dictates that dog is considered a family pet and not dinner.

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Sure. I don't usually post random nonsense as some folks do other than when its clear I am doing so. Case closed.

Which is why we need to avoid slippery arguments.

[Amby 490]

She's really good. I hope she's popular in school.

No kidding!!! Wouldn't want to catch her in one of her "special" moods and piss her off!!!

I forget what movie that's from?

Billy Madison. He was glad he called THAT guy! Heh.

oh yeah good movie

[DeadPoolX 9]

Common sense is "Gee whizz, smoking near this open can of gasoline probably isn't a good idea".

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Well given that you are partial to relativisms - I guess the appropriate response would be:

Some comments are more justifiable than others.

It is "common sense," but seeing as you refuse to acknowledge such, there's no point in banging my head against a brick wall.

As for justifiability, I think you need to look around this board a little more.

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

Eating dogs is a regional custom. It has nothing to do with common-sense.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Can you justify it?

Eating dogs may be a regional custom, but why? According to some, it's "common sense" that dog is a viable source of food. To others, "common sense" once again dictates that dog is considered a family pet and not dinner.

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Sure. I don't usually post random nonsense as some folks do other than when its clear I am doing so. Case closed.

Which is why we need to avoid slippery arguments.

Perhaps. But who actually believes their posts are nothing more than "random nonsense?"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Common sense is "Gee whizz, smoking near this open can of gasoline probably isn't a good idea".

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Well given that you are partial to relativisms - I guess the appropriate response would be:

Some comments are more justifiable than others.

It is "common sense," but seeing as you refuse to acknowledge such, there's no point in banging my head against a brick wall.

As for justifiability, I think you need to look around this board a little more.

OK - How is it common sense?

Again (without losing the context) - one cannot justify making sweeping judgements about other cultures based on pictures they see on the wall of a police station.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Common sense is "Gee whizz, smoking near this open can of gasoline probably isn't a good idea".

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Well given that you are partial to relativisms - I guess the appropriate response would be:

Some comments are more justifiable than others.

It is "common sense," but seeing as you refuse to acknowledge such, there's no point in banging my head against a brick wall.

As for justifiability, I think you need to look around this board a little more.

OK - How is it common sense?

Again (without losing the context) - one cannot justify making sweeping judgements about other cultures based on pictures they see on the wall of a police station.

Culture often dictates what we view as "common sense." As for making "sweeping judgments" about those on a police station wall, I'd have to agree. However, I was never talking about "wanted posters."

[Danno 1,228]

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

And your take on the ratio of reported crime the racial breakdown of prison population and the posters on the wall would be?

A range of factors.

And your top 3 would be?

[HAL 9000 96]

Common sense is "Gee whizz, smoking near this open can of gasoline probably isn't a good idea".

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Well given that you are partial to relativisms - I guess the appropriate response would be:

Some comments are more justifiable than others.

It is "common sense," but seeing as you refuse to acknowledge such, there's no point in banging my head against a brick wall.

As for justifiability, I think you need to look around this board a little more.

No I think PD's question is quite on the money. Beyond making crass and idiotic stereotypes based on incomplete information, the only thing an observer needs to have is the common sense to be able to identify the factors that are causative.

Specifically- what you should be arguing is not culture but attitudes.

What is "common sense?" Common sense dictates we don't eat dogs in North America or Europe. In Asia, common sense says it's perfectly okay. Unless you wish to view pretty much everything through a Western lens, the best you can do is realize that life is far more complicated than we imagine.

Eating dogs is a regional custom. It has nothing to do with common-sense.

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

I don't believe it was any more or less "unjustifiable" than anything else posted on here.

Can you justify it?

Eating dogs may be a regional custom, but why? According to some, it's "common sense" that dog is a viable source of food. To others, "common sense" once again dictates that dog is considered a family pet and not dinner.

Can I justify it? Let's ask a better question: Can anyone here fully justify their comments? If not (and I don't believe they can), then the case is closed.

Sure. I don't usually post random nonsense as some folks do other than when its clear I am doing so. Case closed.

Which is why we need to avoid slippery arguments.

Perhaps. But who actually believes their posts are nothing more than "random nonsense?"

Most sane-headed folks can detect it. And most whom do not can always ask for clarification depending on whom is posting the nonsense. I think most of us here can readily identify the difference between who can and who does both of which rather well. And, others simply could care less.

So yeah... common sense dictates that reality and its contributing factors, create and cause what we see today around us- not fictitious stupidities that feed irrational arguments.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Culture often dictates what we view as "common sense."

Smoking near an open can of gasoline is pretty universal. Common sense transcends culture.

As for making "sweeping judgments" about those on a police station wall, I'd have to agree. However, I was never talking about "wanted posters."

Well I was, which is why I questioned the original statement about cultures condoning crime.

[HAL 9000 96]

Culture often dictates what we view as "common sense."

Smoking near an open can of gasoline is pretty universal. Common sense transcends culture.

As for making "sweeping judgments" about those on a police station wall, I'd have to agree. However, I was never talking about "wanted posters."

Well I was, which is why I questioned the original statement about cultures condoning crime.

Which is why it is sensible to question the rationality (and intelligence) of connecting the promotion of crime with cultural values.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

And your take on the ratio of reported crime the racial breakdown of prison population and the posters on the wall would be?

A range of factors.

And your top 3 would be?

Economics.

Education.

Availability of employment.

Family history.

Regional history.

And yes - all of these things inform subcultural values to some extent. And yes - they are all interrelated.

[HAL 9000 96]

So then why defend what was an unjustifiable statement with relativisms?

And your take on the ratio of reported crime the racial breakdown of prison population and the posters on the wall would be?

A range of factors.

And your top 3 would be?

Economics.

Education.

Availability of employment.

Family history.

Regional history.

And yes - all of these things inform subcultural values to some extent. And yes - they are all interrelated.

It would perhaps help to clarify for those that confuse 'subcultural values' with culture itself to relabel subculture as something easier to comprehend: attitude.

And attitudes don't generate spontaneously either.