Yes, and I see that you rushed to share this view with your friend Werner Patels when he endorsed "taser first, ask questions later" as a police tactic here.But then again, consistency is a mark of a small mind, isn't it?
No, I'd suggest the mark of a small mind is assuming I read (or agree with) everything Werner Patels writes.
I don't assume anyone to agree with everything Werner says - even Werner can't manage that for a prolonged period of time. But Werner applauding death by tasering is several degrees more offensive than defending their use in general. If there were consistency in your principles, you would attack reprehensible ideas no matter where they came from. If it's a bad idea in your ideological enemies, it's a bad idea in your friends.
Hmmm. That's an interesting proposition, if one has only read half of Werner's post, wherein he writes as follows:"I have to apologize for my previous statements regarding this case. I spoke too soon and too quickly before even having all the facts in this case. It appears that it was all a confluence of tragic events that resulted in a man's death (however, I side with a number of experts who say that his death was not the direct result of being tasered)."Werner admitted that he was wrong to side with the police in this particular case.Yet, you continue to cite this particular post as proof his alleged contempt for the rule of law and human life, despite the fact that he admitted that his original assessment was wrong.That's extremely dishonest, and shameful. You're trying to tell people that he agreed with this particular tasering, whereas he demonstrably changed his mind upon learning the facts.What you're doing is spreading a lie of omission in order to besmirch someone else's name. Any honest person would be embarrassed to be doing that.And, quite frankly, to conclude, there are many times that I've told Werner that I disagree with him.
His retraction irrelevant: his threshold of what constitutes an acceptable use of force is remarkably low, and much lower than what you state your own to be. Could you, in all honesty, agree with him if his initial understanding of the facts were correct? Remember, his post was titled "Tasered! Good Riddance!" and his argument boiled down to "If you misbehave and can't speak English, you deserve to be killed like an animal." Not exactly someone concerned about due process there. Note also his comments on Eastern Europeans, which I somehow doubt fall under his retraction. You seem like a smart guy, and the only one of his commenters that puts any thought into their own blog. Is this the kind of person to whom you want to be lending your credibility?
Werner's retraction is irrelevant only to those who are predisposed to crucifying him -- perhaps, to someone obsessive enough to start an entire blog dedicated to precisely that purpose?I won't pretend that sometimes Werner isn't blunt. There are times I take issue with him on this. I won't pretend Werner is politically correct.But as human beings, we're all imperfect. In fact, I respect Werner's ability to admit when he's been wrong. It's a trait you don't seem to share.You want to badger Werner over something he's admitted he was wrong about. That's tantamount to kicking a man when he's down. Even if you personally lack the maturity, I'm sure those whose opinions I actually respect will forgive me for not joining you.
Post your comments, and join the discussion!Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.