• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Jersey Girls"

GregoryUrich said:
This sounds like conjecture to me. Do you have any psychological research to support this position?
Click to expand...
Do you think that, for example, relatives of a murder victim should be allowed to sit on the jury of the suspects trial? If not, why?
 
GregoryUrich said:
I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?
Click to expand...

Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I think this clearly depends on the individual person and the time frame. We are talking about close to 7 years.

Were blacks never able to think straight about civil rights?

Are victims of violent crime never able to think straight about the crimes committed against them?
Click to expand...

Exactly, going by Chill's logic, Elie Weisel or Simon Wiesenthal could never become activists against genocide.
 
chillzero said:
Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.
Click to expand...

Please don't abuse your power as a moderator. I gave a legimate hypothetical argument to prove a point that is directly on topic. I.e. the capability of victims thinking clearly. Lack of civil rights is not a crime unless you are the one who doesn't have any.
 
chillzero said:
Civil rights are not crimes.

You should maybe take the topic to the Social Issues, or Philosophy section. It's a derail, as I mentioned before.
Click to expand...
Restricting the is, indeed, a crime. At least in the US. I think.
At any rate, I believe that you are correct. On of the questions always asked of a potential juror, after "do you know or have any association with any of the parties involved" is essentially "have you ever been a victim of a crime of this nature", and a "yes" answer pretty much gets you sent home.
 
I also feel that the so called "Jersey Girls" should not be given a free pass to say any crazy thing they want. Sure they suffered a lot from grief but that doesn't excuse them from espousing a belief in things that are quite frankly, insane.

My own brother, Doug, was shot and killed by two police officers. Should I be allowed to run around screaming about "no good, pig cop, thugs?" No. You would all be wrong to allow me to rant and rave hysterically just because I suffered the loss of a loved one. Especially since it was three years ago and I got over what grief I had for my brother a long time ago. By the same token it's been almost seven years since 9/11. If the Jersey Girls haven't gotten through the grieving process by now I don't think they will. In that case it means they are sick and perhaps need counseling and medication.... it also means that anything they say should be suspect. If they are over the grief then they are not sick and actually believe these things due to faulty logic and ignorance. In that case they are no better than any standard Truther.

Either way anything they say should be analyzed critically and exposed as illogical if it meets that criteria. Doing so isn't spitting on anyones graves, or making light of what happened to them, it is merely the responsibility of anyone who is a critical thinker.
 
Travis said:
Either way anything they say should be analyzed critically and exposed as illogical if it meets that criteria. Doing so isn't spitting on anyones graves, or making light of what happened to them, it is merely the responsibility of anyone who is a critical thinker.
Click to expand...


Go ahead already. What "insane" things do they believe in? Quotes are welcome.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Please don't abuse your power as a moderator.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? If I did so, I would expect someone to report it. Where did I do anything here as a moderator?

GregoryUrich said:
I gave a legimate hypothetical argument to prove a point that is directly on topic.
Click to expand...

No, it's derailing into a generalised discussion of victims. Take it elsewhere.

GregoryUrich said:
Lack of civil rights is not a crime unless you are the one who doesn't have any.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. That's not the same as what we are discussing.
I'm happy to discuss it further, if you take it to a new thread in the appropriate forum section.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Go ahead already. What "insane" things do they believe in? Quotes are welcome.
Click to expand...

They believe they presented the names of potential whistle-blowers to the commission but that these people were not called to testify.

They believe the people who failed our nation should be held accountable instead of promoted.

They believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fleischer and Rice lied when they said "I don't think anyone could have imagined", "Airplanes as missles? We didn't know...", etc.

The believe only a small portion of their questions were answered by the Kean Commission.

They believe Zelikov helped to serve the Bush administration's cover-up of incompetence or worse.

Get the men in white coats. I am a danger to myself and others...I believe these insane things too!
 
chillzero said:
Excuse me? If I did so, I would expect someone to report it. Where did I do anything here as a moderator?

No, it's derailing into a generalised discussion of victims. Take it elsewhere.

I don't disagree with that. That's not the same as what we are discussing.
I'm happy to discuss it further, if you take it to a new thread in the appropriate forum section.
Click to expand...

A moderator calling "off topic" as a regular poster carries a certain amount of weight.

It's OK for you to assert specific traits of victims, but when these are challenged you call "off topic". Great.
 
GregoryUrich said:
A moderator calling "off topic" as a regular poster carries a certain amount of weight.
Click to expand...

I didn't call 'off topic' as a moderator, otherwise it would have been in a mod box, and there'd have been splits made by now.

GregoryUrich said:
It's OK for you to assert specific traits of victims, but when these are challenged you call "off topic". Great.
Click to expand...

I am not even going to start with this one. I'm reporting the continued derail, for another mod to assess and move.

But - my original post that started this was completely on topic, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, was in defense of the Jersey Girls. You remember the Jersey Girls - right? Yes - the topic of this thread... not the civil rights movement, or anything else. However, you seem to prefer to demonise me regardless. Go ahead, I can live with it.
 
chillzero said:
But - my original post that started this was completely on topic, and also, in case you hadn't noticed, was in defense of the Jersey Girls. .
Click to expand...

CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.

But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."
 
RedIbis said:
CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

RedIbis said:
But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss heroes or people acting under pressure or during tragedy. What I feel is the point, is when victims like the Jersey Girls try to make certain assertions about the tragedy in question. They are not qualified to speak about some things they claimed, and they were misinformed on others. Their whole driving force is because they are angry and they do not feel they have had their situation appropriately addressed. They are not using experts, nor taking relevant advice in order to drive their agenda. They are using their emotions, and the fact that they have huge empty holes where their loved ones were. They don't have someone to blame, they won't see justice done and most often, in traumatic events like this, that leaves victims and their familes with an uneasy feeling. Lack of proper counselling ensures they do not address their grief, but continue to look outward, to try and find someone physical and local to blame, that they can see punishment meted out upon.

As mentioned above, it's why certain victims get dismissed from certain juries.

I meant that I defended them only in that I was originally suggesting that to dismiss them as 'nutbars' was callous. I must say, I'm surprised to find that I'm the one getting bounced on for this, when I intended only to raise the civility of language being used to describe these women.
 
GregoryUrich said:
No they should be allowed to call for a grand jury investigation.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't they be expected to understand if one is not considered appropriate by legal experts, and also to comply with the findings should one be undertaken?
 
RedIbis said:
CZ,

I support your participation as a member, outside of mod duties. I will say that the line can get blurry. Regardless, your participation is valuable if for no other reason than you are civil, polite, and with all pun intended, moderate.

But to the point, your position on the JGs can hardly be called a defense. You are dismissing their perspective based on trauma. Several examples have been presented where the victims of horrific events have emerged more than clearheaded, if not downright heroic.

I maintain that it is poor logic to assert that because the JGs do not agree with your perspective, they must not be "thinking straight."
Click to expand...

These are all red herrings, I would argue. (No, I'm not making a joke, about various sorts of red fauna, either.) The point is not whether the Jersey Persons are "thinking straight." The point is that they are making false and incorrect statements purporting to be facts (see WC, above, for a single example), and that some posters are, essentially, in favor of granting their statements special dispensation from substantive criticism because of their personal losses.

I've most often heard attributed to the late Daniel Moynihan that very, very true statement that anyone is entitled to his/ her opinion; but not to his/ her facts. I believe that applies here.
 
Last edited:
chillzero said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, the moderation team is one of the primary reasons this is the most informative debate forum I've come across.


I don't dismiss heroes or people acting under pressure or during tragedy. What I feel is the point, is when victims like the Jersey Girls try to make certain assertions about the tragedy in question. They are not qualified to speak about some things they claimed, and they were misinformed on others. Their whole driving force is because they are angry and they do not feel they have had their situation appropriately addressed. They are not using experts, nor taking relevant advice in order to drive their agenda. They are using their emotions, and the fact that they have huge empty holes where their loved ones were. They don't have someone to blame, they won't see justice done and most often, in traumatic events like this, that leaves victims and their familes with an uneasy feeling. Lack of proper counselling ensures they do not address their grief, but continue to look outward, to try and find someone physical and local to blame, that they can see punishment meted out upon.
Click to expand...
This is near entirely assumption. I wonder if you've researched the hard work they did to force the 9/11 Commission, if you're familiar with their infamous meeting with Henry Kissinger. I suspect not.

As mentioned above, it's why certain victims get dismissed from certain juries.
Click to expand...
False analogy. They're not on any jury. However, their testimony would be a compelling part of a prosecution.

I meant that I defended them only in that I was originally suggesting that to dismiss them as 'nutbars' was callous. I must say, I'm surprised to find that I'm the one getting bounced on for this, when I intended only to raise the civility of language being used to describe these women
Click to expand...
.
I do agree. Your initial comments did raise the level of discourse. My analysis of your comments, I hope, was never acerbic, only a continuation of this important line of reasoning.
 
SDC said:
These are all red herrings, I would argue. (No, I'm not making a joke, about various sorts of red fauna, either.) The point is not whether the Jersey Persons are "thinking straight."
Click to expand...


They're not infallable. Simple exaggerations and inaccuracies don't invalidate the totality of someone's work. By those standards, you wouldn't get past the first page of the Commission Report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom