It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Person Mails a Bomb...

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Just in the mood for some thought provoking chat.

"A person decides to mail a bomb to someone and after they do, the recipient opens the package, the bomb explodes and they die." Please note the quotes. This is a made up news story and (for a change) the news is simply reporting the facts. Someone mailed a bomb and someone died.

What are your thoughts on that?

Now lets sweeten the deal. We won't consider the sender's reasons...just the identity of the receiver. Here are some possibles:

The receiver is a peodophile.
The receiver is someone at an abortion clinic.
The receiver is someone at a Mosque.
The receiver is someone at a Synagog.
The receiver is a young child.
The receiver is the CEO of Walmart.
The receiver is a Nun.
The receiver is someone you love.

My point...or should I say "topic of discussion" is this. The news should only report the facts, but we always want the details. Then, based upon the details, our thoughts change from "that's horrible" to "good!". The facts didn't change, but our opinions did because of the person receiving the package. Some people will feel differently from you about these receivers...much different. We decide the degree of guilt not by the facts, but by our personal opinions. We may wish to hang the sender that sent the package to the "young child" and applaud the sender who sent it to the "Walmart CEO". But there really is no difference...is there???

Oh...and one more last one. This is VERY IMPORTANT!!! The last option states "The receiver is someone you love". Now consider this. Whomever the receiver is...someone loves them.




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I guess I should reply first.

I think the only way to have true justice is for laws to be based purely upon the facts. Not opinion and not emotion. Justice should be blind, but we as people are not. Therefore...we need laws and judges...and a jury, that is blind. Otherwise, justice is not fair. There has been a lot of talk about equality lately. For illegals, gay people, about money and income...but isn't fair based upon your opinion of who is deserving of "fair"?

It seems much like the idea that stepping on a roach is fine but crushing a bunny isn't. The bunny is furry and should be protected while there are whole businesses whose job it is to kill roaches.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I think it is wrong in all circumstances, particularly against the pedophile. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, vigilantism is anathema to that concept. It is for the criminal justice system to prosecute this repulsive individual.




edit on 2-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Good point. I hope a lot of people will read this and realize the way we are being manipulated by the news media. Everyone of us. It's exactly the details they emphasise as being important that are in fact only given to influence you and steer your opinion where they want it to go.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
News media, government, religion...a charismatic president?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I think it is wrong in all circumstances, particularly against the pedophile. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, vigilantism is anathema to that concept. It is for the criminal justice system to prosecute this repulsive individual.





I agree with your first statement. But aren't we all vigilantes? We wage war in revenge. We put people in prison and don't rehabilitate...again, revenge. Or at least punishment.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Laws are our way to justify our own bias and emotions.

The "act" is not as important as the "actors" that perform.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Laws are our way to justify our own bias and emotions.

The "act" is not as important as the "actors" that perform.


WELL SAID! So I assume you would agree that our current justice system is not fair?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Ok, I'm still on my first coffee here but from the moment I read your OP I thought "Get real. I've worked in enough well run places to now that all packages are opened and their contents recorded by the front office receptionist/secretary, not the CEO etc. So the woman (this post is usually occupied by a female) gets it, and maybe another person who shares her work area."

Then of course there are those places who will send the parcel right through to the recipient, such as perhaps the nun. Of course the recipient plays on our emotional attachments, but the issue is really who sent the device and why. The laws reflect that, imo.
edit on 2-7-2014 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Laws are our way to justify our own bias and emotions.

The "act" is not as important as the "actors" that perform.


WELL SAID! So I assume you would agree that our current justice system is not fair?



I think our justice system is as fair as we can make it.

Churchill once said that America had the worst form of government, until you compared it to the rest of the world.

I think the same would apply here.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
OK...I'll spill the final beans here.

In my opinion, I (we) can't trust our justice system, politicians, the president, corporations or anyone. I would think that in general...most if not all of you agree with that. But if an infallible computer system were running everything, programmed with our laws...that I could probably trust. The point being...I or we can't trust any "agency" because it is run by humans. And we can't trust humans because they have agendas, emotions and opinions...and they lie. And if you can't trust something/someone, we can't allow it control over us. The only way to have a government (for example) that everyone can trust, is if it isn't run by humans.

Agreed?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
"The facts didn't change, but our opinions did because of the person receiving the package. "

The warmongers are aware of this human psychological dynamic, and use it to manipulate opinion and justify their indiscriminate damage. The controlled media is the tool through which they can exploit the emotions of the people.

Civilians are bombed, the reality on the ground for real and good people like you and me is Hellish. And thousands of miles away, we are told that evil "terrorists" storing weapons in a neighborhood were targeted.

Even further, they can upon whim declare any foreign leader or entity "bad", and portray it so. When really we are going in for the resources, humanitarianism is appealed to by saying some leader is atrocious, and must be stopped. So the neo-cons fulfill their agenda of violent domination, all the while declaring to the world, through media, "we are 'liberating'".

A person mails a bomb, indeed.
edit on 2-7-2014 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I'm adding something to the list. What abut land mines?

They're anonymous. Designed to maim or kill. Directed to whom it may concern. Left over long after conflict is gone from the area.

Are they okay, because thats "war"?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Laws are our way to justify our own bias and emotions.

The "act" is not as important as the "actors" that perform.


WELL SAID! So I assume you would agree that our current justice system is not fair?



I think our justice system is as fair as we can make it.

Churchill once said that America had the worst form of government, until you compared it to the rest of the world.

I think the same would apply here.



But...as fair as we can make it isn't really working too well, is it? Couldn't we make it nearly perfect? With the technology we have, we still rely on a human (or humans) to decide. The best we get is a mixed but ultimately failed judgement. Couldn't we at this point, put together a learning system computer network that would handle the bulk of the decisions? I understand the complexity (I'm a programmer), but the "human" side we allow to interfere could be nearly removed from the equation. IMO
edit on 7/2/2014 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If you're a programmer, then you're familiar with GIGO.

Would you want a computer to determine laws that was programmed by someone ideologically opposed to you?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Just in the mood for some thought provoking chat.


Oh...and one more last one. This is VERY IMPORTANT!!! The last option states "The receiver is someone you love". Now consider this. Whomever the receiver is...someone loves them.


That's not really true, because if my child was a pedophile, I would not love them anymore. I'm sorry, but sometimes your blood relatives can indeed turn into monsters. If you hurt children, I lose all love for you instantly. End of story.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If you're a programmer, then you're familiar with GIGO.

Would you want a computer to determine laws that was programmed by someone ideologically opposed to you?

No...but one programmed with the facts and logic of our current laws wouldn't be very difficult. I'm only talking about a legal decision maker...not a true learning computer. Every crime gets a weight, a severity, a "cost to the harmed" and a "worth of the accused" (very simplified obviously) and the outcome is a value. Could be dollars...could be years.

On the simplest level and example. I get a speeding ticket and I pay $200. It is a deterrent or a punishment. But a guy making millions a year gets a ticket for the same thing and also pays $200. It ISN'T a deterrent nor a punishment.

Now obviously we are talking an infallible computer and that doesn't exist because humans program it. But as a tool? Maybe.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Or maybe a computer based, facts only news feed?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Catacomb

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Just in the mood for some thought provoking chat.


Oh...and one more last one. This is VERY IMPORTANT!!! The last option states "The receiver is someone you love". Now consider this. Whomever the receiver is...someone loves them.


That's not really true, because if my child was a pedophile, I would not love them anymore. I'm sorry, but sometimes your blood relatives can indeed turn into monsters. If you hurt children, I lose all love for you instantly. End of story.

I understand that...but at least for some others, love wouldn't go away. For example...I hate you for what you have done, but I still love you as my child.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Well I do believe you're contradicting yourself. Are we not all of the opinion that once in government, the ones who should be governing lose all their humanity?

If you rely on an impersonal judgment process, then how can the consequences of the crime be measured and taken into account?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join