WWII Vet Says Nobody Helped After He Was Carjacked - video added

[quote name='Sarang01']Knoell I remember talking to someone who was suppose to have hand to hand training and he said if a person knows how to actually use a knife he would just run.
That's of course if you're not packing.
As for Clak, are you kidding me?! Knock that shit out. If someone is robbing you, they don't deserve a fucking dime. Now, if they happen to be a solicitor that's another story.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if that is all that is at stake, sure run. If someone is being victimized, you suggest running because the person has a knife?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes, if that is all that is at stake, sure run. If someone is being victimized, you suggest running because the person has a knife?[/QUOTE]

No, I suggest having a Taser or gun around to use if that's the case or some other weapon where you don't have to risk closing the distance.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This one's easy. That's because there are clear construction signs that act as a warning. Add a police detail during the day and you're good to go.

[/QUOTE]

I wonder if you could get away with posting warning signs outside of your house to release yourself from liability. Or inside.:)
 
This goddamn thread is only 3 pages long and this motherfucker here has the balls to say that I'm the one throwing out strawmen.

[quote name='Knoell']The person who does this type of thing just needs to cease to exist. Sure Dmaul I may be demonizing the criminal because he "simply" stole a car, but it takes a special kind of asshole to do something like this.

Shame on the cowards who just walked on by.

Edit: It is tough to tell from the video who stopped or not, it seems as if the last couple people were helping him. It looked as if someone was calling 911, and was waving someone over, which is curious because its a gas station.[/QUOTE]
Someone that breaks someone else's leg in a carjacking should be put to death. Got it.

[quote name='Knoell']Explain how that wasn't baseless? You misread my post, then proceeded to criticize it based on your own mistaken interpretation of it. I call that baseless.

I am sure the criminal who knocked over an 86 year old man (breaking his leg) and stole his car, was simply a victim of X card you want to play, and cannot be expected to meet established moral standards.

More crying about the criminal being the real victim, and little talk about the true victim. This is why this forum is so damn ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']No I don't think it should officially be punished by death, but I think that a person has such little moral capacity to rip the keys from an 86 year old man and knock him to the ground, should not be trusted to make moral decisions in the future and should cease to exist in society.

If it was me, I would have shot him though yes. Although I don't have a gun.....[/QUOTE]
A reiteration that someone that breaks someone else's leg in a carjacking should be put to death.

[quote name='Knoell']Here is a thought.

When the state has a criminal in custody, they have control.
When a criminal is in the process of comitting a crime, the criminal has control unless someone takes it from them.

But you know, a criminal in public is no different than a criminal in custody, keep thinking that way. I hope you never need a gun my friend.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']I have fired plenty of guns, not sure why this matters but OK. Second, Noone said you don't need training in the safety and use of firearms. Third is that when you are beating someone to death, you then have control of the situation and can restrain yourself.

I actually think you guys have the batman complex. Why? Because you believe that only a world in which batman exists can crime be stopped by a civilian. Defending your life, property, and innocents when the authorities are not present is something to be proud of, not some mythical comic book character. It is sad to think that there are people out there who not only think that stopping a crime is some vigiliante fantasy, but that you shouldn't involve yourself beyong calling the police.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect interpretation of Batman/hero complex.

But I can already tell, you guys are the people on the phone calling the police rather than stopping the poor 86 year old man from being robbed.

Good for you guys.
Click to expand...
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']What the hell are you going on about? Why don't you read the "criminal's deserve second chances" in the sketchy defense attorney voice.

If fighting back when you or even a stranger close to you is being wronged is really stupid then you are more screwed up than I originally believed.

:rofl:"Your beliefs are stupid because I don't share them and disagree" :rofl:

Regardless if you insist on the Batman scenario I appreciate you relating people who would actively assist people who need help to a superhero, and in turn I will relate you to the guy that hides under his desk and calls the police while someone gets the crap beat out of him because you don't want to infringe on the criminals rights.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']This just proves you have no understanding of anything that goes on here. You just say random crap that sometimes is related but usually isn't.

As for the last thread and me thinking I am right wasn't the case. I was pointing out that they were making it as if it was so "outrageous and idiotic" for people to be arguing that charges should be dropped. Then when charges are dropped they say "meh, discretion". It was solid evidence of how people gang up and enforce their opinion as fact on this forum.

You still haven't listed anything that you disagree with me about, let alone "not agreeing with anything I say".

Sad face I am a poor debater :cry:

As for the last page of utter ridiculousness, I won't even bother responding.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']Here is the twist if you were wondering.

1. For the second time, noone said you do not need training in the use of firearms. Who is saying different?

2. What I said was, that if someone is the victim of a crime, the victim, or bystander should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to gain control of the situation. You brought up beating someone to death, and I said that at somepoint in that scenario you have control of the situation and can show restraint. Like you just said though, if you are aiming a gun at someone, they can close the gap very quickly so shooting them may be necessary. Obviously if the perpetrator puts his hands up, and remains where he is, you need not shoot him.

3. "A vast majority of the population may not be trained in hand to hand combat, and it will do little to help if they get hurt."

Sure that can be your official position to dispose of vigiliantism, however I guess you would just be holding your phone with 911 watching this http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Saw-Something-Tragic-On-The-News-Today/1984756 happen instead of assisting the innocent person being assaulted. FYI this isn't from Batman, it happened not too far from me.

"OMG he has a knive! everyone for themselves!"

In the end you just threw out a bunch of strawman arguments. Great job.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']Deja Vu? You are the one who doesn't know what a strawman is, as you constantly use it beyond its definition. Here you go:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

I don't have a lot of time to argue your other ridiculous points right now, but in the morning I will.

But one thing is your third point, that something can go wrong when assisting a bystander. Damn right something can go wrong, that does not mean you should not help. I guess in your mind those two kids should have done the same as the other kid, and videotaped the guy stabbing the girl while on the phone with 911? God damn, you have the most skewed morals I have ever seen.[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']Yes, if that is all that is at stake, sure run. If someone is being victimized, you suggest running because the person has a knife?[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

8 out of your 13 posts in this thread are strawmen. Good job asshole.

edit: Decided to throw another one in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='soulvengeance']I wonder if you could get away with posting warning signs outside of your house to release yourself from liability. Or inside.:)[/QUOTE]
Actually, you can...within reason of course. Beware of dog, worksite permits, caution signs/tape, beware of falling ice, slippery when wet, beware of ice on the ground, etc all point to possibility of injury. The catch is that liability is different from being sued. Any one can sue you for anything, even if it's without merit and that's the bitch of it, not liability.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This goddamn thread is only 3 pages long and this motherfucker here has the balls to say that I'm the one throwing out strawmen.


Someone that breaks someone else's leg in a carjacking should be put to death. Got it.


Strawman.


A reiteration that someone that breaks someone else's leg in a carjacking should be put to death.


Strawman.


Incorrect interpretation of Batman/hero complex.


Strawman.


Strawman.


Strawman.


Strawman.


Strawman.


Strawman.

8 out of your 13 posts in this thread are strawmen. Good job asshole.

edit: Decided to throw another one in.[/QUOTE]

Except you omit the part in which they are an escalation of a conversation. You kept bringing up strawman scenarios in which I replied to. Go back and look buddy, I mean seriously 6 out of 8 of those responses were responding to YOUR (or your little friends) scenarios. The other 2 weren't strawman which is the part where you overuse the term, because you think it's cool or something.

As for the carjacking, how does the carjacker know all he would do is break the old mans leg? How about a hip and died? how about cracking his head open on the ground or something else? Yet again you use facts after the incident to define what a bystander would see and know the perpetrator intended. Simply a carjacking my ass.

"What's that guy doing to that old man?"

"It's ok man, I bet he only breaks his leg, don't approach them, CALL 911!!!1!1"
 
[quote name='Sarang01']No, I suggest having a Taser or gun around to use if that's the case or some other weapon where you don't have to risk closing the distance.[/QUOTE]

As do I.
 
I don't have THAT much time to argue with you buddy, so I will take one example of what you called a strawman.

[quote name='Knoell']
But you know, a criminal in public is no different than a criminal in custody, keep thinking that way
[/QUOTE]

Responding to your ridiculous point that there actually was no difference in the control of a criminal in public and custody.

[quote name='dohdough']
What's the difference between officially and unofficially if you think he should "ceast to exist?" As if "cease to exist in society" meant anything other than being put to death by the state or by an individual.:roll: And since you believe that the perpetrator shouldn't be killed by the state, then you believe that as a witness, vigilante action like shooting the perpetrator dead would be an acceptable response?

Btw, your euphemism sucks and is more transparent than glass. I also hope you never get a gun because you clearly don't have the mental faculties to be responsible enough to own one.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure how my response was a strawman. You are struggling with the fact that a victim/bystander can take a life, but the state cannot for the very same crime. I responded that control is different in each case. The state has control over the criminal if they are in custody. An individual rightfully protecting themselves or other people do not always have control of a situation.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Except you omit the part in which they are an escalation of a conversation. You kept bringing up strawman scenarios in which I replied to. Go back and look buddy, I mean seriously 6 out of 8 of those responses were responding to YOUR (or your little friends) scenarios. The other 2 weren't strawman which is the part where you overuse the term, because you think it's cool or something.[/QUOTE]
I did look and you were too busy tap dancing around the point that you think it would not only be an appropriate action to discharge a firearm in a gas station, but that it would be acceptable for a bystander to shoot the carjacker dead. And I STILL haven't gotten a clarification of what "cease to exist in society" means after asking in mutliple posts because you keep adding ridiculous hypotheticals like the one below.

Who cares if you were responding to others when you were still throwing out strawmen without addressing the original points?

As for the carjacking, how does the carjacker know all he would do is break the old mans leg? How about a hip and died? how about cracking his head open on the ground or something else? Yet again you use facts after the incident to define what a bystander would see and know the perpetrator intended. Simply a carjacking my ass.
Click to expand...
How do the facts change before, during, or after the incident? Being pushed to the ground is not...wait for it...imminent threat.

"What's that guy doing to that old man?"

"It's ok man, I bet he only breaks his leg, don't approach them, CALL 911!!!1!1"
Click to expand...
Strawman and did not happen.

[quote name='Knoell']I don't have THAT much time to argue with you buddy, so I will take one example of what you called a strawman.[/QUOTE]
You have plenty of time, but nothing to back up your bullshit because you don't understand the concept of strawmen.

Responding to your ridiculous point that there actually was no difference in the control of a criminal in public and custody.
Click to expand...
Strawman. Saying "I don't think they should be killed by the state, but they should die by my hands of vengeance" has less to do with custody and more with your hero complex, which is another concept you don't understand. If it's ok for knoell "the batman" strawman to kill the carjacker, why wouldn't it be ok for the state? Custody is irrelevant.

Not sure how my response was a strawman. You are struggling with the fact that a victim/bystander can take a life, but the state cannot for the very same crime. I responded that control is different in each case. The state has control over the criminal if they are in custody. An individual rightfully protecting themselves or other people do not always have control of a situation.
Click to expand...
If you want to use such a loose definition of "control" then that individual with a gun has control over the criminal if they can shoot them dead because the individual with the gun has a "choice." Not to mention that it's a strawman because like a little punk bitch, you still haven't answered what "cease to exist in society" before twisting my argument into something it isn't.

Now the count is 10 out of 16 posts. Keep going. I want to see how far you can go with this and double down.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I did look and you were too busy tap dancing around the point that you think it would not only be an appropriate action to discharge a firearm in a gas station, but that it would be acceptable for a bystander to shoot the carjacker dead. And I STILL haven't gotten a clarification of what "cease to exist in society" means after asking in mutliple posts because you keep adding ridiculous hypotheticals like the one below.

Who cares if you were responding to others when you were still throwing out strawmen without addressing the original points?


How do the facts change before, during, or after the incident? Being pushed to the ground is not...wait for it...imminent threat.


Strawman and did not happen.


You have plenty of time, but nothing to back up your bullshit because you don't understand the concept of strawmen.


Strawman. Saying "I don't think they should be killed by the state, but they should die by my hands of vengeance" has less to do with custody and more with your hero complex, which is another concept you don't understand. If it's ok for knoell "the batman" strawman to kill the carjacker, why wouldn't it be ok for the state? Custody is irrelevant.


If you want to use such a loose definition of "control" then that individual with a gun has control over the criminal if they can shoot them dead because the individual with the gun has a "choice." Not to mention that it's a strawman because like a little punk bitch, you still haven't answered what "cease to exist in society" before twisting my argument into something it isn't.

Now the count is 10 out of 16 posts. Keep going. I want to see how far you can go with this and double down.[/QUOTE]

Cease to exist means to not exist in the world we live in. Through death, incarceration, etc... I cannot believe I had to explain that to you. Now will you stop playing dumb?

Bullet at a gas station is irrelavent and situational, can you not shoot a carjacker in a street because of a gas station?

You obviously care if I respond to others because you quoted me. Again go back and reread what I was responding to. Even though they are your little friends on this forum, they were the ones with the ridiculous hypotheticals, and I am only responding to them.

If the old man that was pushed to the ground died, in some cases the perpetrator would be tried for murder. It was simply a carjacking, and the carjacker was an imminent threat to the old man, wait for it, wait for it, "oh but he only broke his leg so it really wasnt". Stupidity at it's finest.

It has everything to do with custody. If you haven't gotten that by now, you never well.

As for control, you clearly stated a few posts ago how quickly someone can overcome someone with a gun.

Regardless, No I don't have all the time in the world to argue about your obsession with strawman. You have probably used the term more times in the past few years than I have ever seen anyone use it.


[quote name='dohdough']Bob implied that there are more important issues to ask a potential nominee than to ask about an annual car race. I then made a sarcastic comment about how that offence is more egregious when they ask the president about the final four because he's the president and not just a candidate.

In summary, bob said that the press should ask more relevant questions pertaining to governing and policy and then I also gave an example of it along the same vein.

So tell me, how is that a strawman as if it was unusual to ask politicians about sports or a misrepresentation of his point?[/QUOTE]

As not to clutter that other thread here is the definition again in case you forgot. - A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

The answer is in your intent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']At this point, it's pretty obvious that Knoell lacks any education beyond high school.[/QUOTE]

At this point camoor it is very clear you are simply a toady on this forum.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I gotta disagree with this, outside of the property, I can maybe see, but inside of the property I did not give you consent to be in the area, so you are there at your own risk. If that were the law, why aren't tons of people running around in construction zones trying to create lawsuits?[/QUOTE]
Construction zones are usually marked with warnings for one.
 
[quote name='camoor']It depends on what you're talking about - if it's booby traps then you have a point.

But if they slip and fall on a wet floor or a trike left in the living room by little Johnny, then they can sue but any semi-decent judge in the country would throw it out and make the thief pay court fees. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you're talking about civil court and in civil court the burden of proof is much higher.[/QUOTE]
You're responsible for hazardous conditions left on your property and should held accountable if someone gets hurt because of it. If you slip in a store and break a hip, and there was no warning that the floor was wet, lawsuit time. Hell, why do you think those signs exist in the first place?
 
[quote name='camoor']At this point, it's pretty obvious that Knoell lacks any education beyond high school.[/QUOTE]
Knoell doesn't need a bunch of ivory tower liberals trying to edumacate him.

Hell, in a real, formal debate he wouldn't have a chance.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Cease to exist means to not exist in the world we live in. Through death, incarceration, etc... I cannot believe I had to explain that to you. Now will you stop playing dumb?[/QUOTE]
In other words, by any means necessary upto and including death. Which would mean that my original assertion of what you mean was correct and that someone should be able to act as judge, jury, and executioner in the event of someone being pushed to the ground and then having their vehicle stolen.

Bullet at a gas station is irrelavent and situational, can you not shoot a carjacker in a street because of a gas station?
Click to expand...
How the fuck is it irrelevant when the incident occured in a fucking gas station? Aren't we discussing this specific incident? And you accuse me of playing dumb?

You obviously care if I respond to others because you quoted me. Again go back and reread what I was responding to. Even though they are your little friends on this forum, they were the ones with the ridiculous hypotheticals, and I am only responding to them.
Click to expand...
What hypotheticals? Point them out and be specific. I have no interest in defending you; that's your job.

If the old man that was pushed to the ground died, in some cases the perpetrator would be tried for murder. It was simply a carjacking, and the carjacker was an imminent threat to the old man, wait for it, wait for it, "oh but he only broke his leg so it really wasnt". Stupidity at it's finest.
Click to expand...
You still don't understand imminent threat. Is it imminent threat when you cross the street? Just because no one hit you doesn't mean it can't happen right? You might as well get yourself a rocket launcher just in case a car doesn't stop in time cause YOU NEVER KNOW...AMIRITE

Your misinterpretation of imminent threat is so broad that anything can be interpreted as imminent threat. Getting checked in hockey? Imminent threat. Tackled in football? Imminent threat. Greco-Roman wrestling? Imminent threat. Playing on a seesaw? Imminent threat. Stepping on a crack? Imminent threat cause you might break your back.

It has everything to do with custody. If you haven't gotten that by now, you never well.
Click to expand...
Why should a vigilante have more leeway to shoot a guy that pushed someone to the ground during a carjacking than by the state? Let's turn it down a notch then. Should we allow bystanders to beat the shit out of the guy within an inch of taking his life? What if a couple bystanders actualy beat the guy to death? Should they be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Pushing someone onto the ground does not pass the sniff test for imminent threat; the story in your link about the girl being stabbed in the face DOES. Now tell us what the difference is and let's see if those two brain cells can rub something out.

As for control, you clearly stated a few posts ago how quickly someone can overcome someone with a gun.
Click to expand...
You brought the gun into the scenario, not me. You're the one defending the use of one. And if you can't understand why firing a gun in a gas station is dangerous, that's on you.

Regardless, No I don't have all the time in the world to argue about your obsession with strawman. You have probably used the term more times in the past few years than I have ever seen anyone use it.
Click to expand...
Yet, you still can't seem to understand what it means or how i t works. It really is amazing how dense you are!

As not to clutter that other thread here is the definition again in case you forgot. - A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

The answer is in your intent.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if I was trying to get back to your original argument of vigilantism, but you kept trying to push it in another direction. And since my intent was to keep you on topic, it must mean that I was strawmaning you!:roll:
 
[quote name='Clak']You're responsible for hazardous conditions left on your property and should held accountable if someone gets hurt because of it. If you slip in a store and break a hip, and there was no warning that the floor was wet, lawsuit time. Hell, why do you think those signs exist in the first place?[/QUOTE]

If you have any lawyer friends, ask them if they'd take a case where a thief, in the process of robbing a house, trips on something and twists his ankle. Or falls through the roof and lands in a pile of broken glass (see vid below)

Context matters alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bhqxxx4xN0

PS whoever added the sound effects is a genius

Now that I'm watching vids here is another fun one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dssf4YB_OlU&feature=related
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']You're responsible for hazardous conditions left on your property and should held accountable if someone gets hurt because of it. If you slip in a store and break a hip, and there was no warning that the floor was wet, lawsuit time. Hell, why do you think those signs exist in the first place?[/QUOTE]


The difference is that a store should be prepared for customers walking around when a store is open. It's a store, after all, not a private residence. A person shouldn't have to make sure that their house is safe for burglars. No one puts a wet floor sign up in their house when they mop just in case a burglar happens to break in before the floor is dry.
 
The point is just that people can file suits for injuries that happen inside your home as we have such an up litigation system in the US.

No one's saying it's a valid suit that a judge should allow or that a judge or jury should rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Generally you're more at risk of losing a suit if it's something outside--sidewalk, driveway, patio etc. where the mailman, delivery men it's may get injured.

For the most part, anything inside the house you're probably not going to lose a suit if someone slips or falls etc., but that doesn't mean they can't file them. And there's still some risk if you invited someone in and there was some type of gross negligence in terms of a dangerous situation that you didn't warn them about.
 
[quote name='Clak']Knoell doesn't need a bunch of ivory tower liberals trying to edumacate him.

Hell, in a real, formal debate he wouldn't have a chance.[/QUOTE]

I just have no respect for someone who disdains higher education and doesn't bother to learn etiquette, class, or grammar.

Alot of the non-collegiate, self-made guys that are always referenced weren't all that great anyway. Steve Jobs was a bully, disgusting slob, deadbeat dad, pretty horrible human being all around. He did make some sweet gadgets tho, that I cannot deny.
 
[quote name='camoor']I just have no respect for someone who disdains higher education and doesn't bother to learn etiquette, class, or grammar.

Alot of the non-collegiate, self-made guys that are always referenced weren't all that great anyway. Steve Jobs was a bully, disgusting slob, deadbeat dad, pretty horrible human being all around. He did make some sweet gadgets tho, that I cannot deny.[/QUOTE]
You just reminded me of an episode of King of the Hill where Peggy, Minh, and Dale are trying to make money on the stock market and after watching an episode of Mad Money, decide to follow Bill around because he represents the average American consumer, so the theory was that whatever he bought represented what most Americans would buy and thus, would make money by purchasing stock on those products. Sound familiar?:lol:

edit: Probably not, but here's how they're related. Jobs wasn't really a developer, designer, or artist, BUT he knew what he liked and what he didn't like. This is important because apparently, a lot of people have the same taste in aesthetics as he did! Now it's arguable that a competent-enough marketing team could accomplish the same results, but it certainly wouldn't be as exciting as having an ubermensch image to sell. A great argument I read in another forum was that drawing a picture of a time machine and telling people to make it happen doesn't make you a genius, inventor, or visionary. Then again, being able to leverage resources sure does help with the illusion!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']The point is just that people can file suits for injuries that happen inside your home as we have such an up litigation system in the US.

No one's saying it's a valid suit that a judge should allow or that a judge or jury should rule in favor of the plaintiff.

[/QUOTE]

Of course people can file suits for anything. Clak said that you are responsible for hazardous conditions in your house, and you should be held accountable if someone gets hurt, regardless of why they were in your house. I took that to mean that he thinks that such suits are valid, and that judges and juries should make the same decision on a case regardless of whether the plantiff was an invited guest or a burglar. Maybe I misunderstood him.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You just reminded me of an episode of King of the Hill where Peggy, Minh, and Dale are trying to make money on the stock market and after watching an episode of Mad Money, decide to follow Bill around because he represents the average American consumer, so the theory was that whatever he bought represented what most Americans would buy and thus, would make money by purchasing stock on those products. Sound familiar?:lol:

edit: Probably not, but here's how they're related. Jobs wasn't really a developer, designer, or artist, BUT he knew what he liked and what he didn't like. This is important because apparently, a lot of people have the same taste in aesthetics as he did! Now it's arguable that a competent-enough marketing team could accomplish the same results, but it certainly wouldn't be as exciting as having an ubermensch image to sell. A great argument I read in another forum was that drawing a picture of a time machine and telling people to make it happen doesn't make you a genius, inventor, or visionary. Then again, being able to leverage resources sure does help with the illusion![/QUOTE]

Eh - I don't buy that because Jobs was a money making machine. He knew how to make most of his ventures a financial success - and not just moderate success but a home run success.

But - and let's get this straight - Jobs was no great scientist. He died because he decided to believe in quacks instead of getting his cancer cured by modern medicine.

Also he never gave a damn about the average American worker. fuck he didn't give a damn about human rights, a simple google of Foxconn would be enough to dispel anyone of that notion.

Part of higher education is that you expand your horizons and become more fully realized, whether that is one extra year learning plumbing, 3 extra years of poetry, or 10 extra years of AI research.

If it's a choice between a patchwork society of happy productive citizens and rich dysfunctional assholes, then I say higher education is worth the cost every damn time.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You just reminded me of an episode of King of the Hill where Peggy, Minh, and Dale are trying to make money on the stock market and after watching an episode of Mad Money, decide to follow Bill around because he represents the average American consumer, so the theory was that whatever he bought represented what most Americans would buy and thus, would make money by purchasing stock on those products. Sound familiar?:lol:[/QUOTE]

Just for laughs, is it me or does this guy look like Bobby grown up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M4ocodNA5Q

Kind of seems like something he'd do too. That boy ain't right...
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh - I don't buy that because Jobs was a money making machine. He knew how to make most of his ventures a financial success - and not just moderate success but a home run success.

But - and let's get this straight - Jobs was no great scientist. He died because he decided to believe in quacks instead of getting his cancer cured by modern medicine.

Also he never gave a damn about the average American worker. fuck he didn't give a damn about human rights, a simple google of Foxconn would be enough to dispel anyone of that notion.

Part of higher education is that you expand your horizons and become more fully realized, whether that is one extra year learning plumbing, 3 extra years of poetry, or 10 extra years of AI research.

If it's a choice between a patchwork society of happy productive citizens and rich dysfunctional assholes, then I say higher education is worth the cost every damn time.[/QUOTE]
Oh I completely agree that he was a horrible person and that higher education is well worth it.

I was referring more to the evolution of the ipod into the various i-devices though. It's nucking futs because it was really a team of industrial designers that did all the work with Jobs picking the designs he liked out of a line-up. Hyperbole of course...or is it?:whistle2:#

[quote name='camoor']Just for laughs, is it me or does this guy look like Bobby grown up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M4ocodNA5Q

Kind of seems like something he'd do too. That boy ain't right...[/QUOTE]
HHAHAHA..holy shit, you weren't joking!:rofl:

Really fucked up that after she did her thing, he told her that he couldn't take back the ticket. That's some really dirty shit right there.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you have any lawyer friends, ask them if they'd take a case where a thief, in the process of robbing a house, trips on something and twists his ankle. Or falls through the roof and lands in a pile of broken glass (see vid below)

Context matters alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bhqxxx4xN0

PS whoever added the sound effects is a genius

Now that I'm watching vids here is another fun one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dssf4YB_OlU&feature=related[/QUOTE]Nothing I said is wrong, I don't know why you keep arguing with me. Whether a lawyer will take the case or not has nothing to do with what I said. You are responsible for hazards on your property, that's all I'm saying. Whether a lawyer will take a case or whether the case will be thrown out is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.
 
[quote name='chiwii']The difference is that a store should be prepared for customers walking around when a store is open. It's a store, after all, not a private residence. A person shouldn't have to make sure that their house is safe for burglars. No one puts a wet floor sign up in their house when they mop just in case a burglar happens to break in before the floor is dry.[/QUOTE]
Again, my point is that you're responsible for your property and thus and hazards that might exist there. What the person is there for doesn't change that. Most suits by injured criminals might be thrown out of court, but that's up to a judge and how they feel, they don't have to.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Of course people can file suits for anything. Clak said that you are responsible for hazardous conditions in your house, and you should be held accountable if someone gets hurt, regardless of why they were in your house. I took that to mean that he thinks that such suits are valid, and that judges and juries should make the same decision on a case regardless of whether the plantiff was an invited guest or a burglar. Maybe I misunderstood him.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't see the difference. The ability to file a suit like is to compensate the injured, and hopefully provide enough incentive for people to keep their property safe from hazards. Based on that, I don't see why there should be a difference. Yeah it would piss me off if somebody did it to me, but lots of things piss me off. i mean whats the difference between an uninvited burglar hurting himself on your property and an uninvited salesman doing the same thing? Neither had your explicit permission to be there, why does their intent matter?
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh - I don't buy that because Jobs was a money making machine. He knew how to make most of his ventures a financial success - and not just moderate success but a home run success.

But - and let's get this straight - Jobs was no great scientist. He died because he decided to believe in quacks instead of getting his cancer cured by modern medicine.

Also he never gave a damn about the average American worker. fuck he didn't give a damn about human rights, a simple google of Foxconn would be enough to dispel anyone of that notion.

Part of higher education is that you expand your horizons and become more fully realized, whether that is one extra year learning plumbing, 3 extra years of poetry, or 10 extra years of AI research.

If it's a choice between a patchwork society of happy productive citizens and rich dysfunctional assholes, then I say higher education is worth the cost every damn time.[/QUOTE]
Without Woz Apple computer would not have existed as DaSteve wouldn't have had a product to sell. And that's honestly what Jobs was, a great pitchman. He was a great business man, which considering who he was a younger man is rather ironic.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nothing I said is wrong, I don't know why you keep arguing with me. Whether a lawyer will take the case or not has nothing to do with what I said. You are responsible for hazards on your property, that's all I'm saying. Whether a lawyer will take a case or whether the case will be thrown out is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]

FWIW I wasn't arguing with you, I thought we were just discussing something.

I'm not a lawyer so according to a strict interpretation of the law you may be correct. I was just talking from a more pragmatic standpoint. I don't worry about idiot-proofing my house for thieves - that's ridiculous. If a burgler comes in and puts his foot through my glass coffee table, then for all intents and purposes that's on him.
 
[quote name='Clak']Without Woz Apple computer would not have existed as DaSteve wouldn't have had a product to sell. And that's honestly what Jobs was, a great pitchman. He was a great business man, which considering who he was a younger man is rather ironic.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget Pixar. Whatever his flaws, Steve Jobs had the midas touch. You can't take that away from him.
 
[quote name='ID2006']That's a shame, but this kind of phenomenon is not unheard of. People have passively sat by during murders as well, without attempting to stop or even alert the police and emergency aid.[/QUOTE]
If someone is killing someone else and I don't have a gun in my hand, I too would sit/stand by and just watch or call the cops. No way in hell am I gonna risk injury or death to my person for someone else. Now if my name were Superman or Connor MacfuckinLeod then I might consider it since the only things I'd have to worry bout the criminal having was a sharp object to lop my head off or Kryptonite. But I'm a mortal human being and I value my own safety above that of a total stranger.

Now if it were a family member or friend, I might actually consider it. But if it's some random person on the street I'll call the cops but I'm not getting involved.
 
[quote name='camoor']Don't forget Pixar. Whatever his flaws, Steve Jobs had the midas touch. You can't take that away from him.[/QUOTE]
He was smart enough to surround himself with brilliant people, I'll give him that. And he apparently had a knack for aesthetics, although I don't think for a minute he personally designed anything. He knew what he wanted and told his designers to make it happen. I know he's credited with at least having a hand in some designs, but I'm willing to bet that's akin to someone like Stan Lee getting an executive producer credit in a film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top