Unethical Tweet Of The Week: Prof. David Guth

Guth Tweet

With this brain-jarring twitter offal from University of Kansas journalism professor David Guth—and if you marvel at the abysmal quality of today’s journalists, there’s a big clue right there—Ethics Alarms launches a new category, the Unethical Tweet of the Week. Clearly, Twitter has a magic ability to make even reasonable public figures and professionals engage in irresponsible, hateful and idiotic discourse, though I seriously doubt that this particular tweet’s author needed much of a shove.

What’s the matter with the tweet? Well, how long have you got? Let’s see:

  • It embarrasses his employers, the University of Kansas, not that the school doesn’t deserve it if this is the caliber of mind it permits to teach young men and women. When you can easily be connected to your employer, making a public statement that is vicious, illogical, unethical and cretinous is a breach of duty and trust. The school is currently saying that it defends his right to say what he wants, which is fine. He does not have a right to make every sane graduate want to turn in his degree, but academic freedom protects him where the First Amendment might not.
  • It is incompetent and reckless in its disregard of facts. All indications are that the Navy Yard shooter began his rampage with a hunting shotgun, which no current proposed legislation would have prevented him from owning. The only way one can blame the NRA for the tragedy  is if one holds it responsible for the Second Amendment not being repealed, which is pure ignorance.*
  • It adopts the absurd, if popular, concept that conflicts of interest are good, and lead to good decisions and policy. The opposite is true. Those who have loved ones who are the victims of gun violence are the last people who should be involved in gun policy deliberations. They are driven by bias and emotion….just like Guth.
  • The tweet adopts the premise of guilt by association in its ugliest and most brutal form. He is angry at NRA members, so he calls for their children to be murdered.
  • It embraces vengeance and violence as desirable and socially acceptable. They aren’t.
  • This is mindless hate, uncivil and unthinking, that only makes rational debate more difficult.
  • The tweet undermines his own position, and thus the position of more responsible gun control advocates who put forward responsible and reasonable arguments. The preponderance of vicious hysterics and hateful ignoramuses on the anti-gun side only makes the likelihood of their cause prevailing less likely, as it alienates moderates—me, for example—who are open to being convinced. I don’t want to be on any team that has jerks like Guth and Piers Morgan as members, and I can’t imagine why anyone would. The best thing these bitter fools could do for the cause of gun regulations is to shut up.

On the plus side, it’s an excellent example of an unethical tweet.

So that’s something.

* Note: In the original version of this post, the word “not” was inexplicably omitted from this sentence. Well, there is an explanation—I don’t type well, and my proofreading stinks. I am very sorry.

________________________

Facts: Campus Reform, Daily Caller

55 Comments

Filed under Education, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, The Internet, U.S. Society, Unethical Tweet

55 responses to “Unethical Tweet Of The Week: Prof. David Guth

  1. I leave it to others to enjoy some of my tweets regarding this issue. Look for the ones to or about KUNews, or that have the hashtag “#KUfacts”.

    I’m particularly proud of the I-70 comment, and the re-formation of KUNews’ twitter bio.

    • Whew! Thought you were dead…

        • These?

          LAWRENCE – The University of Kansas today issued the following statements in response to comments by Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth regarding the Navy Yard shooting in Washington, DC.

          Ann Brill, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications:

          “While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse. Professor Guth’s views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence directed against any group or individuals.”

          Timothy C. Caboni, vice chancellor for public affairs:

          “The contents of Professor Guth’s tweet were repugnant and in no way represent the views or opinions of the University of Kansas. Like all Americans, he has the right under the First Amendment to express his personal views and is protected in that regard. But it is truly disgraceful that these views were expressed in such a callous and uncaring way. We expect all members of the university community to engage in civil discourse and not make inflammatory and offensive comments.”

          I’d say they are inadequate. Of course his comments represent UK: everything a professor does in public reflect on the University. It tells me what kind of poeple they have teaching on campus.

    • FinlayOshea

      Hey, you’ve been missed…

  2. Jj

    Taking shots at the NRA for this latest mass murdering is without merit. If you’re for more restriction or background checks that count for something, this is not the appropriate strategy.

    And it also points to the uselessness of trying to ban assault weapons. Maniacal killers will find the weapons they need.

    • Kat B.

      Yep,”find the weapons they need” reminds me of my retired uncle who’s profession was playing doctor to fools. Well he was a medical doctor and ended his practice when the government thought they did a better job than he. He says a bullet is always better than a gallon of gasoline and a match….evil ones will always find a way to destroy the good.

    • How many of them ever heard of Sten guns?

  3. AndrewV

    The level of anger in this tweet makes me wonder: when the gun-control zealots come to confiscate the guns, do you think they will do it at gunpoint?

    • yes, because gun control zealots don’t mind force when it is centralized and under their orders

      • Michael R.

        Yes, because they have no problem with the government having guns, or the police having guns, or criminals having guns. Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore think it fine to pay armed guards to protect themselves while pushing an anti-gun agenda. Life would be so much better for THEM if they had armed guards and no one else had access to firearms. They could feel more secure pushing through crowds knowing everyone else would have to fear their armed guards.

        They had a news special about California’s program to seize the firearms of people who had been convicted of a felony or were found ineligible because of mental illness. They took a SWAT team to the person’s house, while they were there! Then, the police complained about how time-consuming and expensive this was. I’ll say. Why not just require that the firearms be turned in before the person could be released from prison or hospital? A relative or friend could bring the weapons to the police station and turn them in in a controlled fashion (just like when people register firearms). Why do it in such a confrontational, expensive, and time consuming manner? Are they trying to provoke an incident on purpose so they can gain support for their gun seizure agenda?

        • Andrew V

          Well, the overuse of SWAT teams and the militarization of police forces is a whole other problem….all those who think they’re keeping their guns to potentially fight off a tyrannical government are deluding themselves. As far as I’m concerned, citizens now only have guns at the pleasure of the government, and it would be too costly in terms of votes to do anything about it now. If the trend tilts the other way, gun confiscation wouldn’t surprise me all that much.

          • That’s a misunderstanding of the role of the People in the great balance of power enshrined in the Constitution: namely a standing army, state controlled (except when called to national defense) separate militias (called select corps in the Federalist, and the greater body of armed citizens that is THE militia.

            The founders never envisioned a populist spontaneous uprisings as a manifestation of the values enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. No, purely sudden insurrections like that would inevitably devolve into mobocracy and nothing short of the horrifying upheaval like the France’s revolution.

            In one of the federalist papers, the writer describes the balance of power thusly: any liberty threatening scenario in which the people are oppressed by the national government, they can rally to their States to support an armed opposition. Any liberty threatening scenario in which the people are oppressed by their particular states, they can rally to the National government for support. I will find that federalist paper when I get home so you can reference.

            The founders never envisioned a non deliberated or constitution insurrection. If just a mass of people who had not first appealed and petitioned and actually came together as a body politic to deliberate the need to rebel or take arms against a constituted authority, that is a recipe for disaster even greater.

            Anytime I hear a rebuttal against the second amendment along the lines of “what would random citizens hope to do against tanks and jets and nukes?” I know that they aren’t familiar with what the Founders envisioned any justifiable armed insurrection would look like what form it would take or what step it would take.

            • An excerpt from “The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered” (numbered Federalist #28 by custom)”

              “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

              The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!”

              The whole thing should be read.

              • Ack:

                I meant to highlight this sentence:

                The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.

                How apt.

  4. Kat B.

    If it was public knowledge (really thankfully not) I wonder what his HIPPA report says about his mental condition? I think he failed his background check and is bitter or jealous or deeply evil..

    I don’t tweet but if I did I would tweet him that my AR got used this evening while a slight rain was falling in a freshly baled hay field while sittin on the tailgate of a Dodge one ton and a lifetime NRA sticker shining in the moonlight…. maybe I should ship him some fresh hawg meat?

    • Mmmmm, thanks Kat for all you said there – I can smell the rain, the hay dust and soil gases in it, feel the kick of the gun firing, smell the gunsmoke…I can even feel the soreness in my butt from sitting on the tailgate…but can’t quite fill in the smell or taste of the cooked hawg. Some things are better when NOT left up to the imagination! I will sleep well now.

  5. ByTheFarmstead

    It is an excellent example of how tweeting is an ‘open mouth, insert foot’ media. Flame wars are almost guaranteed, if people think that’s entertaining instead of sad.

  6. 13 shot in Chicago park

    Is this getting any coverage? I have no TV’s in my office to guage the msm’a reaction to it.

    Maybe I should tweet something about how the blood is on the hands of the virulent anti-gun lobby?

    Oh wait, because the problem is more complicated than firearm possession.

  7. Pingback: College professor reacts to Navy Yard shooting, calls for murder of NRA member’s children | Prepper Podcast Radio Network

  8. The University has placed Guth on indefinite administrative leave…

    Note that they didn’t do it because they have an issue with what he said. No, they did it because of all the attention.

    The feckless cocktards have officially confirmed that they only care if people pay attention and raise a stink – so long as you keep your vile bullshit quiet, you’re free to do as you please.

    • What he said, absent all the flack, is arguably “academic freedom.”

      • Hardly. This is Kansas – membership in the NRA is common (hell, a number of his students may well be former active-duty soldiers or National Guard members), and I would absolutely understand if they felt both unwelcome to voice disagreement in class, and that his grading might be – to put it kindly – unfair.

        Granted, *I* wouldn’t have issue with voicing my opinion, but I suspect I would have written off a passing grade after week two (people like this man rarely hide their bias during lecture) and would just put the screws to him out of a mixture of duty and spite – some sackless cumbubble of a professor who thinks even saying out loud in front of anyone that he hopes the kids of NRA members die would find me unlikely to meekly sit in his class and let him be a fuckwit in my presence in silence.

  9. A white nationalist could easily make the argument that the blame for the Navy Yard shooting is on persons who “agitated” for civil rights for blacks.

  10. fattymoon

    Guth comes off better on his blog, methinks.

    (As I just commented on Facebook, Jack, your post has given me pause. I have been known to write some inflammatory stuff on Facebook which is then automatically posted on Twitter. After reading your thoughts, I will begin toning down my anger just a notch.)

    http://snappingturtle.us/Blog.html

    Vol. 7 No. 44 — Where Do You Stand?
    September 16, 2013
    X
    I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined. The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue. Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact. The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association. I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says. But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom. I don’t wish what happened today on anyone. But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point. There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security. Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me. And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will. There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?
    X
    That’s it for now. Fear the Turtle

    • That’s probably one of the dumbest pieces I’ve ever read.

      I generally feel your posts here are thoughtful and bring new angles to things. But this one was pretty unintelligent. Sorry to be blunt.

      • fattymoon

        No offense taken, texagg04. As I stated in my post, Guth comes off better in his blog post, imo. Why? Well, first of all, he doesn’t say anything about killing the children of NRA members. That’s a major plus in my book.

        I also happen to agree with the majority of what he wrote in the above blog post. But, that still leaves a sizeable minority, doesn’t it.

        For the record, I was the top marksman in my platoon back in 1965. Today I own no gun. I have been contemplating purchasing one, though I don’t know why I would need it.

    • The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

      Prove it.

      One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

      Our own U.S. government champions gun culture via military recruitment.

      But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

      We dco not trust people like you to determine what these limits are.

      In the past, these “limits” were applied in a race conscious manner.

      But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

      So why were not he Navy masters-at-arms able to respond quickly enough?

      If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

      Apparently, a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation did not happen in the Navy Yard.

      Why were the masters-at-arms unable to respond fast enough?

      A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

      Anyone who thinks that assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction does not know what they are talking about.

      There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets.

      Then the government should forthwith give up all of its assault weapons, high-volume magazines, and hollow point bullets.

      After all, whom does the government need to kill?

      In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

      See above.

      The side of angels and the NRA.

      The angels in this debate are the Devil’s angels…

      • fattymoon

        The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

        “Prove it.”

        Can’t. Seems like there’s plenty of blame to go around. (See http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069537-nra-blames-media-music-and-more-for-culture-of-violence?lite) Yet, ironically, I don’t agree with most of the blame game. I think the situation we find ourselves in (not just the U.S. but much of world civilization) is the metaphorical postulation of of the wetiko (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5J2NtM3pWg&feature=share&list=PLys31DBu1MDOXFMiXLzG3F-VxHEJKyldt)
        —————————————————————–
        One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

        “Our own U.S. government champions gun culture via military recruitment.”

        Agreed. So that makes two organizations championing the gun culture.
        —————————————————————–
        But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

        “We dco not trust people like you to determine what these limits are.

        In the past, these “limits” were applied in a race conscious manner.”

        Disagree. As a country, I think we need to find some sort of balance. Other countries, too, voice similar concerns. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics)
        —————————————————————————
        But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

        “So why were not he Navy masters-at-arms able to respond quickly enough?”

        Unclear. This bears further investigation – Stand down: A government official told CNN that when the first radio call came in about a shooting at the Navy Yard, highly trained tactical U.S. Capitol Police officers headed to the base but were told by a watch commander to stand down. The chief has now ordered an “independent fact review.” D.C. Police Chief Lanier told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that she was not aware of anyone being turned away. “I don’t think you could have had a faster response,” she said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/navy-yard-shooting-recap/index.html
        ——————————————-
        If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

        Apparently, a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation did not happen in the Navy Yard.

        “Why were the masters-at-arms unable to respond fast enough?”

        Unclear. See above.
        ——————————————————————–
        A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

        “Anyone who thinks that assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction does not know what they are talking about.”

        Oh yeah? Says you! ;) So, what is your definition of “mass destruction”? Just for fun, looky here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/washington-navy-yard-shooting_n_3934027.html#132_there-have-been-more-mass-shootings-since-newtown-than-youve-heard-about-infographic
        —————————————————
        There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets.

        “Then the government should forthwith give up all of its assault weapons, high-volume magazines, and hollow point bullets.

        After all, whom does the government need to kill?”

        They intend to kill me, for one. Why? because I have repeatedly called for the arrest and imprisonment of the entire U.S. government. And I have requested our military to institute a coup in order to do just that.
        ——————————————————————-
        In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

        “See above.”

        See above.
        ———————————————————
        The side of angels and the NRA.

        “The angels in this debate are the Devil’s angels…”

        Unclear, but I like the sound of it.
        ————————————————————–

        So how do you go about putting all those quotes in a gray box? HTML?

      • Valid points, although I’d add:

        “I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined.”

        Probably why Mr. Guth’s following rant lacks any logic.

        “The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue.”

        Because there has been a fairly steady percentage of evil people in this world, as the population increases, so will the number of evil people and so will the number of instances in which evil people do evil things.

        He’s a professor and he has that question?

        “Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact.”

        In other words, Mr. Guth already knows his arguments will be lambasted and skewered for the emotionalist and illogical tripe that it is, so he will preempt those arguments by implying any criticism must be because he is “too quick to judge, too harsh…or too strident”. No, sir, your critics will attack you for you utter lack of reason.

        “The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

        That’s about as intelligent as blaming the Dallas School Book Depository for Kennedy’s assassination because they employed Oswald to work for them. For someone as supposedly intelligent as a professor, you’d think he noticed that the blood spilled today is on the hands of Aaron Alexis. But I shouldn’t expect emotionalists to understand cause and effect.

        “I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this.”

        Another sloughing off of criticism. This Mr. Guth is full of crap. In other words: “I know my rant is thoroughly ignorant, and I know more intelligent people than me (approximately 99% of the world population) will tear it apart for what it is: one step below amphibian fecal matter; but I don’t give a damn.”

        “One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens.”

        There’s scant little logic in tying direct causes of crimes to social and political groups. Certain arguments for indirect influences of those social and political groups might be made, but still the shooter is at fault here. But let’s humor Mr. Guth, who at this point has reduced himself to lobotomized drivelry, and pretend you can directly tie these crimes to these forces. He alludes to the primary source of violent guns-solve-problems messaging, while blaming the primary source of guns-are-dangerous-and-must-be-respected organization. Yeah, Mr. Guth has referenced in passing, Hollywood and mass entertainment, where daily we can see reckless vigilantes taking law into their own hands and meting out their own justice in the form of wild bullet sprays with disregard to anything but their own self-chosen moral codes. Where violent narcissists seek their own solutions and collateral (upwards of apparantly billions of fictional dollars and dozens to hundreds of lives be damned) all for a glorious and violent destruction of a villain. Then Mr. Guth proceeds to pin the effects crappy world-visions vomited out by Hollywood on the NRA: arguably, in stark contrast to Hollywood, an organization that ardently supports law and order, Due Process and responsible use of force and handling of firearms. What an idiot.

        “Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.”

        And damn those Founding Fathers for acknowledging that the only final check on tyrannical consolidation of power is the dispersed possession of force.

        “But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.”

        Self-evidently dumb.

        “I don’t wish what happened today on anyone. But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.”

        Yeah, except those “misguided miscreants” packing heat may shoot any evil person before the death toll gets higher. Seriously though, do we really allow institutions to hire professors who can’t think?

        “Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.”

        Every time I hear a leftist drum out the “OK Corral” argument I feel an aneurysm coming on. I hear this argument “if everyone packed heat, then anytime a gunman came in, the place would become a wild west shootout and a ton of innocent people would die”. My response: “Dear idiots, a ton of innocent people DID die”. A) Wild West = not that wild B) people who work with each other and may end up having to save each others lives are, unbelievably to leftists, smarter than you think they are.

        ” There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.”

        Since “assault weapons” is such an idiotic term anyway, I’ll answer the question as though an intelligent person (which Mr. Guth is not) had asked it, and replace “assault weapons” with “firearms”. Yes, there is justification. Please read History and please read the Founding Fathers understanding of Checks and Balances. Armed citizenry (that is equally armed as the Infantryman) are part of the checks and balances.

        “Enough is enough.”

        Yes, so please shut up and save us all your blathering.

        “Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.”

        I’ll send her my condolences.

        “And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.”

        Sigh…

        “There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?”

        Dumb.

        • Agreed…uniformly moronic. WHAT “madness”? The madness involved is the insanity of the shooter.

          People really like the idea of pre-crime, don’t they? Let’s figure out those most likely to do bad things, and strip their rights away before they can do them…or, in the alternative, strip the rights away from people who can be trusted with them, because of the risks posed my the minority who can’t.

          The fact that so many people, including so-called scholars, adopt such thinking makes it amazing that the US has held on to its freedoms this long.

          • In our efforts to forcibly engineer a “perfect” society (which is impossible), we can only hope to destroy the very excellent human virtues that can at least guarantee us a “pretty dang good” society (which is very possible, and for most of American history, has been in existence). Once those excellent human virtues are destroyed, however, we will have to settle on a dismal society. At least until out of utter base existence people say enough is enough and they have to claw their way through savagery to re-discover and ultimately re-enshrine those excellent virtues again.

          • People really like the idea of pre-crime, don’t they? Let’s figure out those most likely to do bad things, and strip their rights away before they can do them…or, in the alternative, strip the rights away from people who can be trusted with them, because of the risks posed my the minority who can’t.

            I am surprised that no one is championing the mass extermination of the mentally ill.

            The mentally ill are, after all, a politically-powerless minority who could be easi,lty scapegoated for these shootings.

        • Unless you correct me, Tex, I am going to assume that “lobotomized drivelry” is a Cynicus Maximus original.

    • That is some weapons-grade fuckwittery…

      There is virtually no part that does not depend entirely on emotional arguments. His side has no facts to back up its claim, and in fact studies show that increasing guns laws DO NOT reduce gun crime, and all but one of the mass shootings of the last several years have been in gun-free zones.

      But assholes like this cuntwad will never accept that their way does. Not. Work.

      They will push for more, and ignore eveything to the contrary.

      And he will sit there, in his own smug sense of self-superiority, and think he fucking knows better than the rest of us. Oh, if only we would see that his is one of our betters. If only we would let him decide for us, how much happier we would be.

      The ignorant fuck.

  11. fattymoon

    Just found another unethical tweet.
    Democratic official resigns over offensive tweet
    http://www.cbs8.com/story/23493458/democratic-official-resigns-over-offensive-tweet

    Posted: Sep 21, 2013 2:05 PM MDT
    Updated: Sep 21, 2013 2:05 PM MDT
    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – A Democratic Party official in Sacramento County has resigned after sending an offensive Twitter message during a heated exchange over President Obama’s health care law.

    The Sacramento Bee (http://bit.ly/1adBmQb ) reports the county’s Democratic Party on Friday called for and accepted the resignation of Allan Brauer, its volunteer communications chair.

    Brauer addressed the offensive tweet to Amanda Carpenter, a speechwriter for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, as House Republicans voted to defund the health care law. Brauer wrote, “May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”

    The message drew widespread condemnation. Brauer apologized to Carpenter before resigning his position with the Democratic Party.

    Kerri Asbury, the county’s party chair, called the comments “appalling and inexcusable” and said “wishing harm is never an acceptable response during heated public debate.”

    Information from: The Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com

    Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  12. Seriously though, twitter should have taught us all by now, that it is no place to publish anything. The end.

    I’ve observed two, what I call “Twitter Half-Lifes”, as a measure of any argument.

    the first twitter half-life measures how quickly the responses to any single assertion inevitably devolves to blatant insults or profanity. On average I think it is about 2-4 tweets.

    the second twitter half-life measures how quickly so many other people jump into responses that the names of everyone involved take up so many characters that the substantive portion of all response tweets amounts to 10-15 characters.

    Twitter sucks for anything other than vapid celebrity drunk tweets. Anyone else tweeting (politicians, scientists, intellectuals, philosophers) must surely understand that their tweets are measured against that….not the other way around.

  13. Pingback: Tweets of Wrath: Unethical or Just Hilarious? - The Cyber Advocate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s