Neighbors to the rescue!!

[Shiranu]

whiny blather!

meh..coming from the forum whiner...

non-the-less as I said earlier, I will try to treat your condition with special gloves.

Man, you don't know anyone now a days...

I honestly thought you were a decent poster, minus the fact all you ever post is stalker comments (in humour, I get it, not criticizing the content just the repetitiveness of it). But seriously... playing the victim, starting a thread to have people disagree with you and then when they agree with you you STILL go on a bitch fit and attacking them for agreeing with you...

If it makes you feel better, you actually made me feel something... disappointment. Disappointment in myself for not seeing through your bullshit sooner. You can at least take pride in that, in terms of forum douche nozzles, you were the least obnoxious about it until now.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Edit: And oh yeah, I am the big, bad forum bully! I go around attacking everyone and everyone else cowers before me! No one else on this forum has EVER thrown a personal attack, it was all big, bad Shiranu! This is a forum of saints and angels who never, EVER get into heated arguments or start throwing around insults at people who disagree with them!

He really hasn't attacked you at all this thread, and you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum. (You got into a 4 page flamewar with me because you can't tell the difference between attacking a position and attacking a bad argument. I was less touchy than that at the age of 14.) The fact that the rest of us aren't exactly saints doesn't change the fact that your vitriol-to-substance ratio is so high it would make the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church blush. If the phrase "pick your hill to die on" ever applied it should apply here. There is nothing on this forum worth losing your shit over to the degree you typically do.

[Shiranu]

He really hasn't attacked you at all this thread, and you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum.

No, he just continued to argue with me and others WHEN WE AGREED WITH HIM, and then made snide remarks about child abduction being acceptable. Golly gee willikers, what ever could be wrong with that?

The fact that the rest of us aren't exactly saints doesn't change the fact that your vitriol-to-substance ratio is so high it would make the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church blush.

Yeah, when people say stupid shit I call them on it. And if you think I am the most confrontational person on here, I can tell you haven't been here long. In terms of most of the people we use to have, I am mild. And unlike them, I don't blow up on people for no reason; I do it because they say something I find really fucking stupid. But we still have at least two people here who I would put FAR above me in that ratio. And when its about arguments we have had 100 times before, I see little reason to act like, "Oh maybe this time it will get through to them!".

And lets also be fair; I post FAR more often than most of those people, so its rather common sense that you would see more of me than anyone else.

There is nothing on this forum worth losing your shit over to the degree you typically do.

If you aren't getting upset about people saying other's must be okay with child abduction, with young kids being stalked and murdered... then I honestly don't give a shit what you have to say.

I'm an emotional person, and when people say that shit I get upset. I don't hold grudges except for one person on this forum who has been a bigot and an asshole since day 1. That doesn't mean when I walk away from the computer I am going to still be throwing lamps and flipping chairs, it just means when I respond I am not going to pussyfoot around pretend to respect them when they present an opinion I have no respect for.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

No, he just continued to argue with me and others WHEN WE AGREED WITH HIM, and then made snide remarks about child abduction being acceptable. Golly gee willikers, what ever could be wrong with that?

You don't get to play the victim card when you fire the first shot, sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah, when people say stupid shit I call them on it.

So when you do it, it's calling people out. When I do it, I'm being obnoxious. Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. I've yet to insult anyone for any opinion they have, no matter how nutty I think it is. For you it seems to be second-nature.

And if you think I am the most confrontational person on here,

> you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum.

Now you're just not reading what I'm saying. Again. This is how our last fight started. I daresay it's how most of your fights that I've seen start.

I can tell you haven't been here long.

Gee, what gave you that impression? It couldn't be the little spot under my avatar that says how long I've been a member here.

In terms of most of the people we use to have, I am mild. And unlike them, I don't blow up on people for no reason; I do it because they say something I find really fucking stupid. But we still have at least two people here who I would put FAR above me in that ratio.

Stalin and Mao were worse than Saddam Hussein. Doesn't make Hussein a nice guy.

If you aren't getting upset about people saying other's must be okay with child abduction, with young kids being stalked and murdered... then I honestly don't give a shit what you have to say.

There's getting upset, and there's losing your shit. If you lose your shit, you come across as a pile of emotions with no rational thought going on in your head. We make fun of a lot of people who do that on this forum: most of them are called theists.

You can be upset and still make a cohesive point with a minimum of insults thrown in. There is a time and a place for losing your shit. An internet forum is neither.

[Jack89]

The key part is "think I can help out". Many people simply don't think they can help (or their interference would only make the situation worse).

And they might be right, or not. You can never know. But I think most will follow the same line of logic as you; they just arrive at the conclusion that they cannot help out.

Then don't help.  I really don't know how to answer that.  I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations.  If it's me, I'm going to give it a go if I think there's a chance I can help.

I mean; it's really noble to run into a burning building to try and save someone, but if the most likely outcome of that situation is that the firemen will now have to drag two unconscious people out of the building, should you really go in?

I say make a judgement call.  In the four or five minutes (or longer) it takes the fire trucks to get there, you might be able to drag that first unconscious person out of the building before it becomes engulfed in flames.  If you wait, that person burns to death.  Your call.  

Funny you should say that though.  About 2 weeks ago my son and I were driving home and saw some smoke above the rooftops just around the corner from our house.  I drove around the corner and saw thick black smoke billowing from the top of the house and around the edges of the roof.  The front door was open but I didn't see anyone, not even in the neighbors' yards.  It was kind of spooky that nobody was in sight.  I told my son to call 911 and ran to the front door.  I checked it out and didn't see any flames so I stepped in and yelled out, "is there anyone in here?"  Just then a young man, maybe 15, stepped around the corner hugging a big fat furry cat, both of them covered with soot.  They were OK and went out the front door.  Another young man came from the kitchen and exited the house as well.  He told me that there was no one else in the house.  I went back to my car and  my son said the fire trucks were on their way.  Both the young men looked OK so we left, not wanting to block the street.  We heard the sirens as we went around the corner.

[Shiranu]

Sorry, went out to get food. Got Whataburger... I mean, you get what you pay for. It was alright, but meh...

You don't get to play the victim card when you fire the first shot, sorry to burst your bubble.

So he takes a stab at people saying vigilantism is wrong by implying this was a case of vigilantism done right, I agree with him that this was a case of Neighbourhood Watch being done right... to which he attacks me for agreeing with him... and that makes me the aggressor?

I don't think it works that way, when you agree with someone its very hard to say that's "firing the first shot"...

So when you do it, it's calling people out. When I do it, I'm being obnoxious. Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. I've yet to insult anyone for any opinion they have, no matter how nutty I think it is. For you it seems to be second-nature.

I have never called you obnoxious.

The only two people being obnoxious in this thread that I have seen so far is me for my manner of speaking and aitm for the implied insults. And I didn't insult, and haven't insulted aitm, for his arguments; infact, as you may have noted and I have pointed out several times in this thread, I AGREE with his arguments that this was NHW done CORRECTLY... what I HAVE insulted him over were the implied insults, acting like everyone is out to get him when we are AGREEING with him and then implying that we find child abuse acceptable.

Gee, what gave you that impression? It couldn't be the little spot under my avatar that says how long I've been a member here.

I don't look who says what and all of that jazz over there. I did look after and posted that and saw, hey I was correct, but normally I don't look at who is posting what, I look at what the content was. When you look at WHO is saying what you tend to come into it with a bias.

There's getting upset, and there's losing your shit. If you lose your shit, you come across as a pile of emotions with no rational thought going on in your head. We make fun of a lot of people who do that on this forum: most of them are called theists.

If you say so. When people are actually interested in debate then I oblige; however as was proven here he had no intention of starting any type of debate; when he was agreed with he goes on the offense and starts arguing with people who are agreeing with him, then implies that we find child abduction acceptable. At that point he loses any and all rights to respect.

I don't particularly care if I don't come across as rational in this thread because there was zero reason to be... this thread was a farce to begin with to throw insults and have a persecution complex and I am not going to give that shit an iota of legitimacy.

You can be upset and still make a cohesive point with a minimum of insults thrown in. There is a time and a place for losing your shit. An internet forum is neither.

No, a rational argument is not a place for it. Thankfully, there wasn't one before this.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

So he takes a stab at people saying vigilantism is wrong by implying this was a case of vigilantism done right, I agree with him that this was a case of Neighbourhood Watch being done right... to which he attacks me for agreeing with him... and that makes me the aggressor?

I don't think it works that way, when you agree with someone its very hard to say that's "firing the first shot"...

I think you need to look up the definition of a backhanded compliment. Well, backhanded agreement in this case.

I have never called you obnoxious.

I was venting about statements made by Johan in another thread; guess I should have clarified.

If you say so. When people are actually interested in debate then I oblige; however as was proven here he had no intention of starting any type of debate; when he was agreed with he goes on the offense and starts arguing with people who are agreeing with him, then implies that we find child abduction acceptable. At that point he loses any and all rights to respect.

Again, I would question if you were really agreeing with him at all. You may think you did, but that post wasn't even directed at me and even I knew you were only going to elicit a bad response with such a backhanded statement.

I don't particularly care if I don't come across as rational in this thread because there was zero reason to be... this thread was a farce to begin with to throw insults and have a persecution complex and I am not going to give that shit an iota of legitimacy.

Then don't engage in the discussion. The world is not going to end if you ignore one thread OP that you know will only end in a flamewar. Avoiding flamebait is a common practice. If you didn't think the OP was bad enough, aitm's first response should have been your hint that he just wanted a fight rather than a debate. (From your perspective.)

[Shiranu]

I think you need to look up the definition of a backhanded compliment. Well, backhanded agreement in this case.

He started off with an implied insult, I responded that they did the right thing, nothing more, nothing less. You can take me saying that they did things the right way as opposed to Zimmerman as a backhanded agreement, but he was the one implying this had anything to do with Zimmerman in the first place through his stab at the GZ thread.

Again, I would question if you were really agreeing with him at all. You may think you did, but that post wasn't even directed at me and even I knew you were only going to elicit a bad response with such a backhanded statement.

I wonder what the point of bluntly saying, "Damn, these kids did the right thing, unlike the other person this thread is a reference to." when that is somehow misconstrued as disagreement that they did the right thing. Should I have therefor just said they did the wrong thing?

Then don't engage in the discussion. The world is not going to end if you ignore one thread OP that you know will only end in a flamewar. Avoiding flamebait is a common practice. If you didn't think the OP was bad enough, aitm's first response should have been your hint that he just wanted a fight rather than a debate.

As I said in my last post to him, I honestly did not know he was that type of poster. That is why I was so thrown off on the first couple of posts; I honestly did not know wtf was going on because I did not think of him as being that type of guy. And I'm not going to not speak my mind because I agree with someone; that pretty much defeats the point of speaking your mind.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

As I said in my last post to him, I honestly did not know he was that type of poster. That is why I was so thrown off on the first couple of posts; I honestly did not know wtf was going on because I did not think of him as being that type of guy.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because my reading of this thread suggests either you starting the fight or you responding to flamebait. Either way, in the same situation I would have just left it alone. If I know going in that I will accomplish nothing by arguing (or arguing further as the case may be), I just don't see the point.

[Johan]

I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations.  

Which is the problem. Because most people don't know their limitations. No one intends to see a little girl get run over by a car for instance when they decide to follow a suspicious person they see in the neighborhood. But without proper training, most people would have no earthly idea what risks are being imposed on others by the actions they're taking. Nor would they have any earthly idea of the proper way to manage and mitigate those risks to others as effectively as possible. Good intentions and ignorance can get people hurt very easily. But most people don't think about that until after someone gets hurt.

I know what I'm trained to do and I know what I'm not trained to do. And I know that people get hurt when good intentions are combined with a lack of training. I have no trouble letting professionals do the work of professionals. I have no trouble letting amateurs with no training do the work of professionals on their own property where the risk exposure is limited to themselves only. But the moment you carry that risk out on the street where my family and my neighbors will be exposed to it, I have a problem with that.

[Jack89]

I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations.  

Which is the problem. Because most people don't know their limitations. No one intends to see a little girl get run over by a car for instance when they decide to follow a suspicious person they see in the neighborhood. But without proper training, most people would have no earthly idea what risks are being imposed on others by the actions they're taking. Nor would they have any earthly idea of the proper way to manage and mitigate those risks to others as effectively as possible. Good intentions and ignorance can get people hurt very easily. But most people don't think about that until after someone gets hurt.

I know what I'm trained to do and I know what I'm not trained to do. And I know that people get hurt when good intentions are combined with a lack of training. I have no trouble letting professionals do the work of professionals. I have no trouble letting amateurs with no training do the work of professionals on their own property where the risk exposure is limited to themselves only. But the moment you carry that risk out on the street where my family and my neighbors will be exposed to it, I have a problem with that.

Well, there's a long history of average people helping other average people, and I for one think that's a good thing.  Some places actually encourage laymen to help their fellow human beings by passing Good Samaritan laws.  Other places have Duty to Rescue laws which hold people liable when they fail to come to the rescue.  These are laws that encourage and compel nonprofessional people to help each other because it's the humane and right thing to do.
Nonprofessionals with good intentions help and save people everyday, much more so than professionals. It's called being a human being.  Sure, sometimes they mess it up and people get hurt, but more often than not they help more than they hinder.  
You can go ahead and wait for "professionals" if you want, but I certainly won't, and I certainly hope other people will help me out if I need it before the "professionals" arrive.

[Plu]

The reason that Good Samaritan laws exist is because it's common enough an occurance that someone "helping" causes accidents that they needed a law to prevent these people from all getting severe punishment for their screw-ups. If it was a rare enough thing, we wouldn't have those laws, because those situations would be handled on a case by case basis.

(That, or the US justice system is so alien to me that I can't say anything useful about it :))

[Jack89]

The reason that Good Samaritan laws exist is because it's common enough an occurance that someone "helping" causes accidents that they needed a law to prevent these people from all getting severe punishment for their screw-ups. If it was a rare enough thing, we wouldn't have those laws, because those situations would be handled on a case by case basis.

(That, or the US justice system is so alien to me that I can't say anything useful about it :))

Think about it.  The reason people are protected from being punished for messing up is to remove the disincentive of punishment from the equation.  People shouldn't be afraid to help others for fear of legal action.
If legislators wanted to discourage Good Samaritan behavior the disincentive would be desirable and this particular law would be counterproductive.

[Plu]

The reason people are protected from being punished for messing up is also because they mess up a lot.

I don't think anyone wants to discourage Good Samaritan behaviour, but the reality is that they fuck up often enough that laws are needed to prevent people from going to jail over it. The fact that they had to remove the fear of going to jail for mucking up just shows that it's a very realistic outcome of trying to help.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.

They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.

Wouldn't have happened if GUNZ!