Skip to comments.Elder: Dorner - Another Angry Fatherless Black Man With a Gun
Posted on 02/14/2013 8:14:36 AM PST by NKP_Vet
My new book, "Dear Father, Dear Son," talks about the No. 1 social problem in America -- children growing up without fathers.
In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." At the time, 25 percent of blacks were born outside of wedlock, a number that the future Democratic senator from New York said was catastrophic to the black community.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
I think the last batch of crazies have all been in the basically without fathers category. Strange how liberalism views that as the promised land, but the dopes are never held accountable for such stupid views.
I would be willing to bet real money that there were clear warning signs for a long time that were ignored.
Before the internet and social media people like this were forced to pretty much keep these thoughts and threats within their minds.
Now they can post them for everyone to read. Why aren’t people held responsible for the things they say in public forums. If I were the family of someone injured I’d sue Facebook for billions.
He’s a union member, democrat and FOR gun control....
Your suggestion is tantamount to demanding that gun manufacturers be held accountable for gun deaths. Facebook is merely a platform placed - for good or for ill - at the disposal of users, and should be under no obligation to "patrol" websites and "police" posters and/or scrutinize their postings for possible "political incorrectness."
The people who make a decision to be evil - you know: the actual perpetrators - should be held accountable for their actions, and no one else.
It’s not like that at all.
When you walk out the door with a gun the manufacturer looses all control for what happens.
The content on Facebook resides on their premises and servers. They own it.
That is the key difference.
Just because someone or something "resides" on something owned by someone else doesn't mean that that someone else should be held accountable.
I also own the house which I rent to a family. Am I responsible for the actions (or words) of that family?
Why should Facebook have to monitor the utterances of its posters - and decide whether or not said lawful utterances might constitute a "threat" (or be interpreted by someone else as threatening)?
A cursory search didnt turn it up, but I saw Jesse Lee Peterson (I think) talking about discussing fatherlessness with street guys - and having them say, I never had a father - you dont miss what you never had. He said his reply to that was, I never had a million dollars, either - but I miss it."
Now they can post them for everyone to read. Why arent people held responsible for the things they say in public forums. If I were the family of someone injured Id sue Facebook for billions.
So which is it?
Do you want people held responsible for what they say, or do you want Facebook held responsible? Seems you want it both ways.
Since Facebook handsomely profits from it they should be held liable. If it were a non-profit public service it might be a little different. Even the advertisers have some liability.
After all, if you own and profit from a whorehouse, you personally are not dipping your wick but you would go to jail anyway.
Are you really a Conservative?!
Facebook's profitability is irrelevant.
What do you have against free enterprise?
Why should money-making businesses be held up to higher standards than ones that don't make money, or don't even try to make money?
Just as a for-profit car rental agency should not be held responsible for the (possibly criminal) acts of its customers, neither does Facebook bear any moral responsibility for the actions of people who make use of its platform to exercise their Freedom of Speech.
Facebook is the scourge of the planet the enemy if you will. They like Google wield power far out of proportion to any use they provide. Most people don’t understand how they are being manipulated and herded. Lawsuits are are the only way to peacefully wage war on them.
conservatives are going to be on the loosing end of this if they don’t wise up and fight against this ruthlessness. We are in the 11th hour.
Yes, if one profits from an illegal enterprise, one is subject to arrest and jail time. How are you comparing that to what Facebook does? It is not at all clear.
Should Bushmaster be liable for what happened in Newtown CT? One assumes they profit from the sales of their product as well.
Facebook is the scourge of the planet
Well, at least you have things in perspective.
Hundreds of millions of people would beg to differ with you. Facebook's customers, who collectively have spent many billions of hours on their platform, obviously believe that it provides preeminent utility. Thanks to free-market mechanisms, they can avail themselves of the nifty functionality it offers. The same applies to Google.
Of course, you are free to reject, for yourself, the products/services which Facebook and/or Google supply (by and large free of any overt charge) and even to believe that they are in some way actually harmful to their clientele (e.g., because people become too dependent upon them, become addicted to being online, spend increasingly more time in virtual worlds, etc.). But that does not entitle you to "wage war" (albeit peacefully) by lodging specious claims against them. And as I've pointed out in my earlier posts above, the moral principle you are attempting to establish (that a seller bears responsibility for the malicious acts of the buyers of his products/services) stands in complete opposition to true Conservatism.
Most people dont understand how they are being manipulated and herded.
Sadly, that is true. But the mere fact that you "don't like" something or someone does not give you an ethical basis for combating it on the grounds that you have cited.
conservatives are going to be on the loosing [sic] end of this if they dont wise up and fight against this ruthlessness. We are in the 11th hour.
The court judgments which you apparently would like to see passed against Facebook and Google would establish legal precedents which would limit our individual freedoms and greatly weaken our free society.
Actually Facebook only provides a faster, easier way to do what you can already do. It’s not saving anyone money because indirectly the goods and services we buy every day pays for the advertisement. It also costs every user a large degree of privacy. At some point in the future if the powers that be decide to start rounding up groups of people a ready made road map is there for the taking.
We already know it is a recruiting tool for terrorist’s and such. We already know a great deal of censorship is being conducted with Twitter and Facebook.
That’s far more power than that MotherZucker deserves or can handle.
Any doubt about Facebooks contribution vs. the price. It’s pretty expensive crutch for lonely people.