Current Events > Pathetic country boomer creates the dumbest yee-haw song in a decade

(+) Yeah! (+)

andel posted...

modern pop country music is just right wing word porn.

Most of it isn't. Most is about people being drunk or wanting a drink.

VeggetaX posted...

Lmao wtf going on up in here

A horribly vile song was posted that 100% implies if someone does something wrong (That the right connects to Black people) in the town, then the town or citizens in the town should then go murder that person.

Troll comes in and agrees with song, saying he sees nothing wrong with it.

People go after user for such an evil position advocating murdering of citizens.

Troll then just does troll things for 250 posts, ending up of course at victimhood and constant sealioning.

People can't stop taking bait and here we are..

Murphiroth posted...

Maybe stop trolling then.

Ah, so this bit of exchange was entirely pointless.

Good talk.

BobbaDukes posted...

Ah, so this bit of exchange was entirely pointless.

Good talk.

Every post you've made is pointless, you're starting to get it!

VeggetaX posted...

Lmao wtf going on up in here

From what I can tell, we've got a MAGA meltdown

BobbaDukes posted...

And generally speaking, I agree. But there are situations where the nuances and fine details complicate matters to such an extent that justice would never be served in a legal sense...

So, using my little imagination bucket, what if the courts find the guy innocent... because he was innocent? What if you are the one wrong about what this person did?

But you, all hopped up on vigilante justice, decides the courts can't be trusted and go and kill an innocent man?

And keep in mind, "I accounted for that in my super specific made up scenario by making myself have Sherlockian levels of deduction, and so I just know that he was the guy and he was actually guilty, so it's totes cool!" isn't an argument any court on the planet is going to hear and agree with.

Whos alt is bobbadukes

BobbaDukes posted...

This has yet to occur. All you've effectively done is repeat the idea that every situation has room for reasonable doubt, and again, that simply isn't true.

What if the dude had a twin? Does his twin deserve to die because "you just know for a fact it's this guy, and there's absolutely no room for reasonable doubt!"?

Sandalorn posted...

A horribly vile song was posted that 100% implies if someone does something wrong (That the right connects to Black people) in the town, then the town or citizens in the town should then go murder that person.

Troll comes in and agrees with song, saying he sees nothing wrong with it.

People go after user for such an evil position advocating murdering of citizens.

Troll then just does troll things for 250 posts, ending up of course at victimhood and constant sealioning.

People can't stop taking bait and here we are..

Eh, I'm bored at work. Might as well watch the trainwreck from up close. But yeah, he's not fooling anyone with his sealioning

BobbaDukes posted...

This has yet to occur. All you've effectively done is repeat the idea that every situation has room for reasonable doubt, and again, that simply isn't true.

Just because you cannot fathom being 100% certain about something and yet being wrong doesn't mean we're wrong for pointing out that that happens in real life.

Literally the situation you use as your hypothetical has happened and the victim ended up being innocent and the vigilante being wrong.

buddhamonster posted...

So, using my little imagination bucket, what if the courts find the guy innocent... because he was innocent? What if you are the one wrong about what this person did?

"What if I completely change your scenario to specifically support my point?"

What's even the purpose of arguments like this? There's a reason I'm using hypotheticals in which there's no room for doubt, yet it can't be proven because no cameras or witnesses were around. Whether or not something can be proven doesn't determine if it actually happened or not. YOU CAN KNOW SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU WERE THERE. A terrible person can know they're going to get away with a crime because there's no proof/substantial evidence. The courts are not infallible arbitrators of justice, and there are definitely situations in which it can be reasonably argued as morally appropriate to take matters into your own hands.

BobbaDukes posted...

"What if I completely change your scenario to specifically support my point?"

Well good thing only the very specific scenario you made up in your head to prove how smart and capable you are at killing guilty people is how the world really works!

buddhamonster posted...

What if the dude had a twin? Does his twin deserve to die because "you just know for a fact it's this guy, and there's absolutely no room for reasonable doubt!"?

If he has a twin, then I wouldn't know "for a fact" that it's him. But this is a scenario in which I DO know for a fact that it's him.

BobbaDukes posted...

If he has a twin, then I wouldn't know "for a fact" that it's him. But this is a scenario in which I DO know for a fact that it's him.

"Well I didn't account for their being a twin in my scenario, so the rapist is obviously an only child. So I blasted him on the spot!"

Enclave posted...

Just because you cannot fathom being 100% certain about something

By the logic you're using, nobody can be 100% certain on anything -- including the courts, unless there's footage or DNA. I am specifically using hypotheticals in which there's no room for doubt between the parties directly involved. Convincing a courtroom is an entirely different beast than knowing that a person is guilty of heinousness through first-hand exposure. Are you saying that if the courts fail to deliver justice, the villain should just be able to roam free?

buddhamonster posted...

"Well I didn't account for their being a twin in my scenario, so the rapist is obviously an only child. So I blasted him on the spot!"

"What if the innocent twin is the one being prosecuted in court?"

See? I can change details to your hypothetical to specifically suit my argument too. It's unproductive.

BobbaDukes posted...

"What if the innocent twin is the one being prosecuted in court?"

See? I can change details to your hypothetical to specifically suit my argument too. It's unproductive.

Yes, imaginary hypotheticals can be changed on a whim. This is why we often use things like evidence and facts to determine guilt, instead of relying on the imagination of vigilante hungry dipshits.

buddhamonster posted...

Yes, imaginary hypotheticals can be changed on a whim. This is why we often use things like evidence and facts to determine guilt, instead of relying on the imagination of vigilante hungry dipshits.

Buddy, there's no harder evidence available to forensic science than BobbaPutUpYerDukes knowing it was him.

How the fuck is this topic still going? Why does this guy still have his account?

UnholyMudcrab posted...

How the fuck is this topic still going? Why does this guy still have his account?

Same mods who sympathized with the admiral are herem

buddhamonster posted...

Yes, imaginary hypotheticals can be changed on a whim. This is why we often use things like evidence and facts to determine guilt, instead of relying on the imagination of vigilante hungry dipshits.

Gee, it's almost as if THE ENTIRE POINT of these hypotheticals is to exercise critical thinking skills for things that could actually happen, such as crimes that are witnessed but can't be proven and criminals who are let off the hook for any number of reasons.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

How the fuck is this topic still going? Why does this guy still have his account?

There it is again. "This person is saying things I don't like; WHY HASN'T HE GOTTEN IN TROUBLE YET?!!?"

Why is this dictatorship school of thought such a prevailing consensus around here?

BobbaDukes posted...

By the logic you're using, nobody can be 100% certain on anything -- including the courts, unless there's footage or DNA. I am specifically using hypotheticals in which there's no room for doubt between the parties directly involved. Convincing a courtroom is an entirely different beast than knowing that a person is guilty of heinousness through first-hand exposure. Are you saying that if the courts fail to deliver justice, the villain should just be able to roam free?

Your scenario was literally sexual assault. If any crime scene was going to have DNA evidence, it would be SA. But somehow in your scenario, the courts are inept and the vigilantism needs to happen

BobbaDukes posted...

By the logic you're using, nobody can be 100% certain on anything -- including the courts, unless there's footage or DNA. I am specifically using hypotheticals in which there's no room for doubt between the parties directly involved. Convincing a courtroom is an entirely different beast than knowing that a person is guilty of heinousness through first-hand exposure. Are you saying that if the courts fail to deliver justice, the villain should just be able to roam free?

Yes, no one can be 100% certain of anything. People can be wrong, courts can be wrong, everything can be wrong. We don't live in a perfect world where perfect information is always available. Which is we've decided that due process should exist and vigilantism is illegal. Letting a villain go free is bad, but slaughtering an innocent because you think you're special enough to know better than the courts is 100x worse.

BobbaDukes posted...

There it is again. "This person is saying things I don't like; WHY HASN'T HE GOTTEN IN TROUBLE YET?!!?"

Why is this dictatorship school of thought such a prevailing consensus around here?

"Why are you guys annoyed by me screaming and smearing shit on the walls? You some kind of intolerant dictators or something?"

NoxObscuras posted...

Your scenario was literally sexual assault. If any crime scene was going to have DNA evidence, it would be SA. But somehow in your scenario, the courts are inept and the vigilantism needs to happen

Depends on when it was reported.

Let's say (heaven forbid) this happened to a loved one, and she didn't say anything till 3 weeks later for fear of retribution. You confront the guy, and after an intense exchange, he admits that he did it but that you can't do shit because there's no proof or evidence. A long trial ensues, and after 8 months of expensive in-&-outs of the courtroom, the jury decides the guy isn't guilty.

What do you consider to be the correct course of action from this point forward?

myusernameislame posted...

Yes, no one can be 100% certain of anything. People can be wrong, courts can be wrong, everything can be wrong. We don't live in a perfect world where perfect information is always available. Which is we've decided that due process should exist and vigilantism is illegal. Letting a villain go free is bad, but slaughtering an innocent because you think you're special enough to know better than the courts is 100x worse.

Of course slaughtering an INNOCENT person is always going to be extremely worse. But the whole point here is that not every scenario leaves room for this kind of doubt, even if it can't be proven to a bunch of strangers in a courtroom.

Sometimes there's not enough proof/evidence.
Sometimes terrible people are well-connected.
And sometimes terrible people just have a lot of money and really good lawyers.

The nuances and fine details of every individual situation matter. Acting like "street justice" has absolutely no moral precedent whatsoever is naive as hell.

BobbaDukes posted...

But the whole point here is that not every scenario leaves room for this kind of doubt, even if it can't be proven to a bunch of strangers in a courtroom.

If your point is that a scenario exists in which there is no doubt, you have failed miserably. We came up with two or three reasons in the span of about 15 minutes why your hypothetical was nonsense.

Doubling down on how awesome and right you'd be because in your head the scenario played out perfectly is not proof of anything...

buddhamonster posted...

If your point is that a scenario exists in which there is no doubt, you have failed miserably. We came up with two or three reasons in the span of about 15 minutes why your hypothetical was nonsense.

No, you did not.

BobbaDukes posted...

No, you did not.

You going, "nuh uh, that can't happen, because it didn't in my scenario!" is not proof that no doubt exists. It's just showing a complete lack of imagination on your part.

Try driving while black after the sun goes down in some southern states. Try that in a small town.

is that what hes referring to?

Sundown Town laws if youre not familiar

BobbaDukes posted...

Of course slaughtering an INNOCENT person is always going to be extremely worse. But the whole point here is that not every scenario leaves room for this kind of doubt, even if it can't be proven to a bunch of strangers in a courtroom.

Sometimes there's not enough proof/evidence.
Sometimes terrible people are well-connected.
And sometimes terrible people just have a lot of money and really good lawyers.

The nuances and fine details of every individual situation matter. Acting like "street justice" has absolutely no moral precedent whatsoever is naive as hell.

There is no neutral third party to say who's innocent or not though. Every individual's idea of certainty is going to vary. Maybe one person is perfectly cool-headed and logical with all the information and is correct, but maybe another person is blinded by rage and prejudice. From their individual perspectives, they're equally "certain" but what good does that do everyone else who has nothing but the evidence to go off of? You can't give a objective, definable criteria to say who should be trusted with vigilante justice and who shouldn't, so society has largely agreed (as reflected in law) to err on the side of trusting no one, because that's what protects innocent people which is valued more than punishing the guilty.

buddhamonster posted...

You going, "nuh uh, that can't happen, because it didn't in my scenario!" is not proof that no doubt exists. It's just showing a complete lack of imagination on your part.

Your idea of a checkmate amounted to, "What if the dude has a doppelgnger?"

Details that can be discovered during a confrontation, unless you assumed the plan was to just snipe the guy from a rooftop. Here's one for you though: What if he not only admits he did it, but gloats about the trauma he instilled in your loved one and the fact that you can't do shit about it?

I still don't know if this is worse than all the chest thumping military worship that Toby Keith put out post 9/11. That shit was all terribly cringe, but this is pretty god damn bad

BobbaDukes posted...

Depends on when it was reported.

Let's say (heaven forbid) this happened to a loved one, and she didn't say anything till 3 weeks later for fear of retribution. You confront the guy, and after an intense exchange, he admits that he did it but that you can't do shit because there's no proof or evidence. A long trial ensues, and after 8 months of expensive in-&-outs of the courtroom, the jury decides the guy isn't guilty.

What do you consider to be the correct course of action from this point forward?

Oh so we changing the scenario now?

BobbaDukes posted...

Guy attempts to SA loved one. You catch him in the act, but he flees the scene.

Weren't you literally just complaining about someone else changing the hypothetical? Tsk tsk.

But to answer your question, the correct course of action would be to ignore the suspect and focus on helping your loved one overcome the traumatic experience. If it was your daughter, for example, do you really think she'd care more about her assaulter being dead than her father being in her life? Because the vigilantism would absolutely lead to you being in jail for decades, maybe even for life

myusernameislame posted...

There is no neutral third party to say who's innocent or not though. Every individual's idea of certainty is going to vary. Maybe one person is perfectly cool-headed and logical with all the information and is correct, but maybe another person is blinded by rage and prejudice. From their individual perspectives, they're equally "certain" but what good does that do everyone else who has nothing but the evidence to go off of? You can't give a objective, definable criteria to say who should be trusted with vigilante justice and who shouldn't, so society has largely agreed (as reflected in law) to err on the side of trusting no one, because that's what protects innocent people which is valued more than punishing the guilty.

And again, I GENERALLY agree with this way of doing things. But all that shit flies out the window when it's YOUR loved one being violated (whether through violence, assault, or whatever), and YOUR eyes being the ones who witnessed the event, and YOUR ears being the ones who heard the monster admit/gloat about it. I am not going to vilify your for taking matters into your own hands over something this personal and traumatizing. I am not going to view this stuff so clinically that I can't possibly fathom why you would feel inclined to act outside of the justice system.

BobbaDukes posted...

And again, I GENERALLY agree with this way of doing things. But all that shit flies out the window when it's YOUR loved one being violated (whether through violence, assault, or whatever), and YOUR eyes being the ones who witnessed the event, and YOUR ears being the ones who heard the monster admit/gloat about it.

And that guy? Adolf Hitler!

Still think not killing him is cool?!

BobbaDukes posted...

And again, I GENERALLY agree with this way of doing things. But all that shit flies out the window when it's YOUR loved one being violated (whether through violence, assault, or whatever), and YOUR eyes being the ones who witnessed the event, and YOUR ears being the ones who heard the monster admit/gloat about it. I am not going to vilify your for taking matters into your own hands over something this personal and traumatizing. I am not going to view this stuff so clinically that I can't possibly fathom why you would feel inclined to do so.

No one said anything about not fathoming why someone would want to do this. But anyway, I feel like we're all due for a reminder that the song isn't about any of this, it's about cities bad, small towns good on the basis of propaganda and fantasy.

BobbaDukes posted...

And again, I GENERALLY agree with this way of doing things. But all that shit flies out the window when it's YOUR loved one being violated (whether through violence, assault, or whatever), and YOUR eyes being the ones who witnessed the event, and YOUR ears being the ones who heard the monster admit/gloat about it. I am not going to vilify your for taking matters into your own hands over something this personal and traumatizing. I am not going to view this stuff so clinically that I can't possibly fathom why you would feel inclined to act outside of the justice system.

"But suppose for a second that YOUR house was ransacked by thugs... YOUR family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths! You try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob..."

Your post is indistinguishable from a 30-year-old Simpsons parody of right-wing fearmongering.

Ya'll really let this alt drag this out to 350 posts?

Oh my god, they finally got him