Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Wait, you don’t remember that time when Ringo busted a cap in Keith Richards ass?
During the filming of the Elvis movie "G.I. Blues"
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
I think there’s a 50% chance the Beatles and Stones banged each other.
it doesn't need to be glorified but its definitely sad anytime a person is gunned down regardless of circumstance.
When you are born poor, raised poor and without parents (who were absent due to addiction), your chances making it in life are slim. Your chances of having a non-violent lifestyle are slim.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
it doesn't need to be glorified but its definitely sad anytime a person is gunned down regardless of circumstance.
When you are born poor, raised poor and without parents (who were absent due to addiction), your chances making it in life are slim. Your chances of having a non-violent lifestyle are slim.
That's sad.
Well said. A few people are telling on themselves in this thread
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
Of course, it is horrible and inexcusable. I just wasn't familiar with him, didn't know that he was a high profile rapper.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
I never got too much into Dolph, but he seemed like an earnest and clever guy.
Hip hop is a business. Lot’s of businesses are co-mingled with bad actors and criminal elements.
The guy got ambush murdered while picking up his mother some cookies. It’s sad every way you look at it. Even if he had made bad choices or was a bad dude.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
Of course, it is horrible and inexcusable. I just wasn't familiar with him, didn't know that he was a high profile rapper.
I'm agreeing with you as I don't know who he is either. I know BBI can be a battleground sometimes, but I'm come in peace.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
What's not to understand here?
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
No, RNargi was pretty clear. Tyrik13 said it's sad this rapper got murdered, especially in his hometown where one should feel safe.
In response to that rather innocuous statement, RNargi replied, essentially "Oh, so you condone murder if it's not at home?" And referred to a code (gang code? rap code? Bro code? Who's to say?). Tyrik never mentioned either thing. Those are called "straw men" that RNargi was railing against while putting words into Tyrik's mouth.
I said it was weird, RNargi brought up the Beatles and Stones banging each other, and here we are. Someone created straw men, but it wasn't me.
I don't disagree with RNargi's statement that two entertainers killing each other is odd and tragic. But his first post in response to Tyrik is just a whole world of assumption and innuendo created purely from whatever alternate universe is operating in RNargi's head.
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
No, RNargi was pretty clear. Tyrik13 said it's sad this rapper got murdered, especially in his hometown where one should feel safe.
In response to that rather innocuous statement, RNargi replied, essentially "Oh, so you condone murder if it's not at home?" And referred to a code (gang code? rap code? Bro code? Who's to say?). Tyrik never mentioned either thing. Those are called "straw men" that RNargi was railing against while putting words into Tyrik's mouth.
I said it was weird, RNargi brought up the Beatles and Stones banging each other, and here we are. Someone created straw men, but it wasn't me.
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Rnargi was asking Tyrik, "why would his hometown be safer than anywhere else?" Of course you should feel safe in your hometown. Everyone should. But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code. I think rnargi is saying that it's completely ridiculous...the killer is MURDERING someone. You should feel safe anywhere in the public space in America, whether or not it's your hometown. But if you're embroiled in a gangbanger lifestyle (and I'm not saying "Young Dolph" was, but it wouldn't be unprecedented), then if someone is literally wanting to murder you, I don't think they're going to care that you're in your hometown. They're committing a capital crime. If anything Tyrik's statement was weird and that's what rnargi was commenting on. Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
No one, should be shot, anywhere. Period. For any reason, no matter the 'culture'. The poster mentioned him as "Young King", so obviously knew his history. He had an album called King of Memphis and was in a feud with another rapper regarding his claim of being the King of Memphis despite not being born there. His car was once shot more than 100 times with him in it. He survived unscathed due to a bullet proof vehicle and actually performed that night. He was shot and survived in another incident by a member of his nemesis' entourage. So he KNEW. And it sure as hell sounded to me that he felt it's ok to shoot and kill someone so long as some set of rules are followed. Can't shoot some one in their 'sanctuary'. That was my point, 100%. Nothing more.
Then, my response was noted as "odd". Think about that. My response that it appears that this apparent 'code' is mind boggling is odd, but entertainers shooting each other over fucking songs is not. It's part of the life. I don't get it. If I'm odd for thinking so, then so be it. I believe in the sanctity of ALL life. No one deserves to be shot over this nonsense, let alone be killed. Cap'n Bluebeard then tries to postulate that one should feel safe in their hometown. What the fuck. Everyone should feel safe everywhere. Most of us venture all over the world and country. Are we supposed to feel safer at home? The notion is ludicrous.
I do not get the absolute LUNACY of shooting and killing each other over song lyrics. I just don't. Please tell me how this should be even remotely acceptable. Why are there these completely idiotic 'diss' tracks that do nothing but foment violence? What does it serve? Why do people even LIKE them? THAT'S what I meant about imagining had the Beatles and Stones engaged in that type of behavior.
What happened to this young man...in the PRIME of life...should NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. It's sad. It's bewildering. It's maddening. And it will incite further violence. There should be no place in society for it, and there should be no ACCEPTANCE of it. But there is. And some people want it.
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence? Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
Diss tracks and "talking shit" always sell. Many times its for show, sometimes it isn't. And when it isn't its a way to attack someone without physically hurting them. Not saying I agree with it but it shouldn't be surprising that its popular. Its really no different than people watching or filming fights instead of breaking it up. Lots of people are entertained by it, likely until the end of time.
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
Not embarrassed in the least. Perhaps you should stick to shitty poker threads, probably more your speed.
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
Not embarrassed in the least. Perhaps you should stick to shitty poker threads, probably more your speed.
Whoa! Not sad and not tragic?? Jesus Christ. You're acting like this guy was a psycho-sadist serial killer who deserved to die or something. He was a rapper for fucks sake. You're basically someone deserves to die because of the type of music/art they make? I mean Johnny Cash sang about shooting and killing people plenty... pretty sure if he'd been randomly gunned down at 36 years old while buying cookies for his mom you would consider that tragic? Like where do you draw the line? Does anyone who acts in violent movies or makes 1st person shooter video games deserve to die too?
And yes saying someone's death at a young age was "not sad and not tragic" is indeed the same thing as saying they basically had it coming to them i.e. they deserved it.
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
I know a LOT of people who grew up poor but kept their families intact. Ask almost any person of Italian decent who's family immigrated to this country at the turn of the century. It's a CHOICE to stay with the family. It's a CHOICE to raise your children. Money or no money.
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
He’s a dude who thinks that every woman who accuses a man of improper sexual conduct and/or rape as liars and are ‘setting men up’. Don’t expect much from this Neanderthal.
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
I know a LOT of people who grew up poor but kept their families intact. Ask almost any person of Italian decent who's family immigrated to this country at the turn of the century. It's a CHOICE to stay with the family. It's a CHOICE to raise your children. Money or no money.
I want to treat this comment with respect, and hopefully build on this idea.
If we can start from the idea that all people are made up of generally the same material, then can we start to think of reasons why certain people or cultural identities have different behavioral patterns?
If for instance, as you mention, that there are differences in some cultural "norms" between turn-of-the-century Italian immigrants, and the cultures borne out of some contemporary inner-city American cultures - what do you think might be some of the societal and historical impacts which might create those dynamics? I agree it's more complex and nuanced than simply the "poverty" catch-all, but surely this plays a role in how both attitudes and cultural norms form.
If, as many seem to suggest, it is down to personal responsibility and choices, than how are the values which inform those informed and passed down? People, all of us, are so much more the product of our environments and situations than perhaps we'd like to admit - and I would hope would allow for more forgiveness of each other than we currently offer.
that's great that you know people who were able to make the best of a bad situation, but you are describing the best possible outcome. Why you think that's some how duplicative across the board is beyond me.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
and was named Adolph? I'm shocked that anyone since the 1940s would name their child that
I don't know that it makes much difference, but he was Adolph Thorton, Jr. His father (presumably) had the same name.
There was a show a while back (maybe History Channel) about people with the last name Hitler. There was also a couple in NJ 15 years ago or so, who named their child Adolph Hitler and child services got involved. I don't remember the outcome there outside of forcing a name change.
that's great that you know people who were able to make the best of a bad situation, but you are describing the best possible outcome. Why you think that's some how duplicative across the board is beyond me.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
Determinism vs free will is a really interesting debate that itself is complicated by generational and cultural values. While I don't think it's an either/or I do believe the majority lies in determinism, and in the case of altering conditioned responses it takes an enormous amount of support and positive reinforcers.
that's great that you know people who were able to make the best of a bad situation, but you are describing the best possible outcome. Why you think that's some how duplicative across the board is beyond me.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
Agree, this why for people in those situations, need to fix the family first. Nothing is perfect but a lot will fall into place if that is the done and the focus by those with influence. It is rarely discussed as the main issue by MSM.
Strong family foundation at worst can’t hurt and at best can be a major positive. The difficulty lies in resolving the symptoms that lead to broken and abandoned families.
Then your latter up to what are the individual and social circumstances that lead to those symptoms.
And then most importantly are we willing to:
1) analyze the differences and similarities of other groups who have/have not achieved more upward mobile
2) remove any unnatural headwinds impacting that group
3) accept more people into the middle and upper classes, even if it’s the expense of those who currently occupy it
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
It's like when Bret Hart refused to lose in Canada at the 1997 Survivor Series.
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
Of course there are rules. He can be killed by a silver bullet when the moon is full and ... oh wait, I might have it confused with something else.
I don't know that it makes much difference, but he was Adolph Thorton, Jr. His father (presumably) had the same name.
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
streetlife rulez R-narg
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
Quote:
In comment 15456655 tyrik13 said:
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Quote:
In comment 15456663 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 15456655 tyrik13 said:
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Wait, you don’t remember that time when Ringo busted a cap in Keith Richards ass?
Imagine how that could have ended?
Yeah that one guy kinda ruined that name... forever. Oh and also ruined that crazy tiny little moostash.
Quote:
In comment 15456663 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 15456655 tyrik13 said:
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
When you are born poor, raised poor and without parents (who were absent due to addiction), your chances making it in life are slim. Your chances of having a non-violent lifestyle are slim.
That's sad.
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
When you are born poor, raised poor and without parents (who were absent due to addiction), your chances making it in life are slim. Your chances of having a non-violent lifestyle are slim.
That's sad.
Well said. A few people are telling on themselves in this thread
Well said. A few people are telling on themselves in this thread
Indeed.
Quote:
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
Quote:
.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
Of course, it is horrible and inexcusable. I just wasn't familiar with him, didn't know that he was a high profile rapper.
Quote:
Quote:
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
What's not to understand here?
Hip hop is a business. Lot’s of businesses are co-mingled with bad actors and criminal elements.
The guy got ambush murdered while picking up his mother some cookies. It’s sad every way you look at it. Even if he had made bad choices or was a bad dude.
Quote:
In comment 15457262 Bergen346 said:
Quote:
.
Yeah, I'm know asking the same question. I don't really keep up with the latest in rap (old school hip hop head here), but nonetheless, senseless violence is deplorable. '85 is way too soon.
Of course, it is horrible and inexcusable. I just wasn't familiar with him, didn't know that he was a high profile rapper.
I'm agreeing with you as I don't know who he is either. I know BBI can be a battleground sometimes, but I'm come in peace.
Quote:
In comment 15457259 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
Quote:
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Yes, I find it odd that a poster says someone should feel safe in their home town, not exactly a controversial sentiment. Yet you twist that response into some weird implication that a sentiment that one should feel safe in the town where they com from means that they condone murder if it happens elsewhere. It's fucking weird.
But you know, have fun fighting straw men and looking for things to be enraged by.
What's not to understand here?
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
This will go well.
Let's see how long Margi's bullshit can survive based on Eric's politics and Kirwan's radio references from a decade ago.
GTFO.
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
No, RNargi was pretty clear. Tyrik13 said it's sad this rapper got murdered, especially in his hometown where one should feel safe.
In response to that rather innocuous statement, RNargi replied, essentially "Oh, so you condone murder if it's not at home?" And referred to a code (gang code? rap code? Bro code? Who's to say?). Tyrik never mentioned either thing. Those are called "straw men" that RNargi was railing against while putting words into Tyrik's mouth.
I said it was weird, RNargi brought up the Beatles and Stones banging each other, and here we are. Someone created straw men, but it wasn't me.
Quote:
You strawmanned the shit out of rnargi with some weird, conspiracy theory motive you gave him for a fairly innocuous statement. Your replies to him were completely off-the-rails...borderline crazy. I think YOU didn't understand what he was saying in the least bit. If you did, you wouldn't have responded to him that way.
No, RNargi was pretty clear. Tyrik13 said it's sad this rapper got murdered, especially in his hometown where one should feel safe.
In response to that rather innocuous statement, RNargi replied, essentially "Oh, so you condone murder if it's not at home?" And referred to a code (gang code? rap code? Bro code? Who's to say?). Tyrik never mentioned either thing. Those are called "straw men" that RNargi was railing against while putting words into Tyrik's mouth.
I said it was weird, RNargi brought up the Beatles and Stones banging each other, and here we are. Someone created straw men, but it wasn't me.
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Rnargi was asking Tyrik, "why would his hometown be safer than anywhere else?" Of course you should feel safe in your hometown. Everyone should. But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code. I think rnargi is saying that it's completely ridiculous...the killer is MURDERING someone. You should feel safe anywhere in the public space in America, whether or not it's your hometown. But if you're embroiled in a gangbanger lifestyle (and I'm not saying "Young Dolph" was, but it wouldn't be unprecedented), then if someone is literally wanting to murder you, I don't think they're going to care that you're in your hometown. They're committing a capital crime. If anything Tyrik's statement was weird and that's what rnargi was commenting on. Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
No one, should be shot, anywhere. Period. For any reason, no matter the 'culture'. The poster mentioned him as "Young King", so obviously knew his history. He had an album called King of Memphis and was in a feud with another rapper regarding his claim of being the King of Memphis despite not being born there. His car was once shot more than 100 times with him in it. He survived unscathed due to a bullet proof vehicle and actually performed that night. He was shot and survived in another incident by a member of his nemesis' entourage. So he KNEW. And it sure as hell sounded to me that he felt it's ok to shoot and kill someone so long as some set of rules are followed. Can't shoot some one in their 'sanctuary'. That was my point, 100%. Nothing more.
Then, my response was noted as "odd". Think about that. My response that it appears that this apparent 'code' is mind boggling is odd, but entertainers shooting each other over fucking songs is not. It's part of the life. I don't get it. If I'm odd for thinking so, then so be it. I believe in the sanctity of ALL life. No one deserves to be shot over this nonsense, let alone be killed. Cap'n Bluebeard then tries to postulate that one should feel safe in their hometown. What the fuck. Everyone should feel safe everywhere. Most of us venture all over the world and country. Are we supposed to feel safer at home? The notion is ludicrous.
I do not get the absolute LUNACY of shooting and killing each other over song lyrics. I just don't. Please tell me how this should be even remotely acceptable. Why are there these completely idiotic 'diss' tracks that do nothing but foment violence? What does it serve? Why do people even LIKE them? THAT'S what I meant about imagining had the Beatles and Stones engaged in that type of behavior.
What happened to this young man...in the PRIME of life...should NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. It's sad. It's bewildering. It's maddening. And it will incite further violence. There should be no place in society for it, and there should be no ACCEPTANCE of it. But there is. And some people want it.
So call me odd.
Diss tracks and "talking shit" always sell. Many times its for show, sometimes it isn't. And when it isn't its a way to attack someone without physically hurting them. Not saying I agree with it but it shouldn't be surprising that its popular. Its really no different than people watching or filming fights instead of breaking it up. Lots of people are entertained by it, likely until the end of time.
non sequitur
Was that right after he did "The Big Payback"? "I don't know karate, but I do know carazy!"
Quote:
In comment 15456663 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 15456655 tyrik13 said:
Quote:
Man was killed in his hometown. Home is supposed to be your sanctuary.. R.I.P. young king
Wait, there are rules? I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
What an odd reaction.
So MY reaction is odd. Are you aware that this "young king" had already been shot by a rival rapper's henchman? Personally, I think it's odd that fucking entertainers shot each other. But that's just ne being odd. I wonder how the world would be now had The Beatles and the Stones had banged each other....
Mick and Bowie banged each other....just sayin
Quote:
Diss tracks and violence have existed before rap.
non sequitur
How so, high motor white guy Jim?
Idiotic connection of unsaid sentiments.
Quote:
James Brown tried to murder a rival musician with a shotgun, wounding a bunch of people in the process.
Was that right after he did "The Big Payback"? "I don't know karate, but I do know carazy!"
Lol nah waaaaay before that.
Quote:
In comment 15457558 RicFlair said:
Quote:
Diss tracks and violence have existed before rap.
non sequitur
How so, high motor white guy Jim?
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Quote:
In comment 15457558 RicFlair said:
Quote:
Diss tracks and violence have existed before rap.
non sequitur
How so, high motor white guy Jim?
Because nobody said or implied otherwise so it was completely irrelevant.
Quote:
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
Quote:
and was named Adolph? I'm shocked that anyone since the 1940s would name their child that
I don't know that it makes much difference, but he was Adolph Thorton, Jr. His father (presumably) had the same name.
He did change it to Dolph from Adolph.
Quote:
In comment 15457485 allstarjim said:
Quote:
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
Not embarrassed in the least. Perhaps you should stick to shitty poker threads, probably more your speed.
Quote:
In comment 15457626 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 15457485 allstarjim said:
Quote:
This is the very definition of a strawman. Rnargi didn't say that AT ALL. You said that. You assigned motive and a meaning to his comment that he didn't say...you construed his comment as meaning the worst possible thing it could mean, but through a giant leap of imagination.
Uhhhhh....this is RNargi's first post:
Quote:
I'm reading that you're saying he can be killed, but just not in his home town? Because by some code, it's a "sanctuary"?
So yes, he DID say that. He is saying that he is reading Tyrik's post to mean Tyrik thinks it's ok to be murdered as long as it's not in his home town (sanctuary). At no point did Tyrik say anything of that nature. At all. Or mention a code. RNargi invented all of that out of whole cloth based on a single word.
Quote:
But the way Tyrik said it, using the word "sanctuary", which has several meanings, one of which means a place of safety and protection from danger, gave the implication that with him being in his hometown, his shooting was somehow against some inside baseball "rules" or code.
Again, Tyrik said nothing of the sort. RNargi (and you, apparently) invented that from his own interpretation. Can you not see how you're both now taking one single, innocuous word and instilling all sorts of meaning that may or may not be intended based on your own interpretations and not anything else that the original poster said?
Quote:
Why would it be any different if he was anywhere else and got shot? It literally makes no difference to anything or anyone in the story that he was killed in his hometown, unless there is actually some unwritten "code" that someone's hometown if off-limits for killing, which is nuts. Killing is off-limits. Do you see the absurdity now? That's what rnargi was commenting on (the way I read it).
Do I really have to explain to a grown adult why a person feels safer in the place where they live and are, presumably, closer to people who love and care about them or at least know and recognize them? It's not like he was wandering around a strange neighborhood and stumbled into a bad part of a city he was unfamiliar with. Dude was buying cookies at a place he went to often.
I'm not at all saying that's how it SHOULD be. Of course killing is wrong. Murder is wrong, and it shouldn't happen no matter where a person goes or how familiar they are with a place. Obviously. That just ain't the way shit is.
Quote:
The person who responded that his hometown should be a sanctuary where a person should be safe dumbfounded me. The response sounded to me, that there is some sort of code that you can gang bang all you want, but you should not be shot in your hometown.
You want me to stop putting words in your mouth (which I did not do, at all), and yet your entire second sentence is exactly that: assigning meaning to someone else's words that is in no way stated in their post. Congratulations!
Just take the 'L'. You've already embarrassed yourself.
Not embarrassed in the least. Perhaps you should stick to shitty poker threads, probably more your speed.
That's sad for you.
Whoa! Not sad and not tragic?? Jesus Christ. You're acting like this guy was a psycho-sadist serial killer who deserved to die or something. He was a rapper for fucks sake. You're basically someone deserves to die because of the type of music/art they make? I mean Johnny Cash sang about shooting and killing people plenty... pretty sure if he'd been randomly gunned down at 36 years old while buying cookies for his mom you would consider that tragic? Like where do you draw the line? Does anyone who acts in violent movies or makes 1st person shooter video games deserve to die too?
And yes saying someone's death at a young age was "not sad and not tragic" is indeed the same thing as saying they basically had it coming to them i.e. they deserved it.
Also, what a tired, stupid thing to say.
Quote:
news at 11
Also, what a tired, stupid thing to say.
j_rud, I can admit it was a pretty lazy comment that certainly did nothing to help anything. I apologize.
Quote:
In comment 15457564 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 15457558 RicFlair said:
Quote:
Diss tracks and violence have existed before rap.
non sequitur
How so, high motor white guy Jim?
Because nobody said or implied otherwise so it was completely irrelevant.
I inferred the implication ina few posts. Either way now it’s there for the future.
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
These people have parents don't they?
Quote:
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
Quote:
In comment 15457548 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
I know a LOT of people who grew up poor but kept their families intact. Ask almost any person of Italian decent who's family immigrated to this country at the turn of the century. It's a CHOICE to stay with the family. It's a CHOICE to raise your children. Money or no money.
Quote:
In comment 15457548 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
Deliberate blindness.
Quote:
In comment 15457558 RicFlair said:
Quote:
Diss tracks and violence have existed before rap.
non sequitur
How so, high motor white guy Jim?
He’s a dude who thinks that every woman who accuses a man of improper sexual conduct and/or rape as liars and are ‘setting men up’. Don’t expect much from this Neanderthal.
Quote:
In comment 15458014 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 15457548 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
see my earlier post. When you are raised into violence do you expect there not to be violence?
That is a cop out. This excuse for people to kill one another has gone on too long.
UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Who is there to keep the violence from being an attractive, or necessary option for survival?
These people have parents don't they?
You come off as severely out of touch. And where am I offering excuses? Children born into poverty, drugs and crime are likely to follow that lifestyle. That isn't an excuses that is a 100% fact. And he grew up without his parents, like many in poverty do.
It has gone on far too long and will continue to do so because poverty is one of the most neglected issues facing our country. South side of Chicago is a warzone and nothing is really being done about it. Do you expect those kids growing up in gangs to just magically see the light and not adopt that lifestyle?
I know a LOT of people who grew up poor but kept their families intact. Ask almost any person of Italian decent who's family immigrated to this country at the turn of the century. It's a CHOICE to stay with the family. It's a CHOICE to raise your children. Money or no money.
I want to treat this comment with respect, and hopefully build on this idea.
If we can start from the idea that all people are made up of generally the same material, then can we start to think of reasons why certain people or cultural identities have different behavioral patterns?
If for instance, as you mention, that there are differences in some cultural "norms" between turn-of-the-century Italian immigrants, and the cultures borne out of some contemporary inner-city American cultures - what do you think might be some of the societal and historical impacts which might create those dynamics? I agree it's more complex and nuanced than simply the "poverty" catch-all, but surely this plays a role in how both attitudes and cultural norms form.
If, as many seem to suggest, it is down to personal responsibility and choices, than how are the values which inform those informed and passed down? People, all of us, are so much more the product of our environments and situations than perhaps we'd like to admit - and I would hope would allow for more forgiveness of each other than we currently offer.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
Quote:
and was named Adolph? I'm shocked that anyone since the 1940s would name their child that
I don't know that it makes much difference, but he was Adolph Thorton, Jr. His father (presumably) had the same name.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
Determinism vs free will is a really interesting debate that itself is complicated by generational and cultural values. While I don't think it's an either/or I do believe the majority lies in determinism, and in the case of altering conditioned responses it takes an enormous amount of support and positive reinforcers.
But you are flat out wrong about it being a choice. Kids don't choose to be born into welfare, or a family with addiction, or 1 or both parents incarcerated or dead. There's just so much research out there about this that frankly i'm a bit surprised at how simple and nonchalant you are making this seem.
Agree, this why for people in those situations, need to fix the family first. Nothing is perfect but a lot will fall into place if that is the done and the focus by those with influence. It is rarely discussed as the main issue by MSM.
Then your latter up to what are the individual and social circumstances that lead to those symptoms.
And then most importantly are we willing to:
1) analyze the differences and similarities of other groups who have/have not achieved more upward mobile
2) remove any unnatural headwinds impacting that group
3) accept more people into the middle and upper classes, even if it’s the expense of those who currently occupy it