Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Offers Political Bias Training In Wake Of Trending Controversy (gizmodo.com)
Michael Nunez, reporting for Gizmodo:Facebook is adding political scenarios to its orientation training following concerns, first reported by Gizmodo, that workers were suppressing conservative topics in its Trending news section. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, announced the change during an interview with conservative leader Arthur Brooks, president of the prominent conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks also attended a private meeting between Facebook executives and prominent conservative leaders following the controversy. "We had an ex-contractor on that team who accused us of liberal bias," Sandberg said during the interview. "Frankly, it rang true to some people because there is concern that Silicon Valley companies have a liberal bias. We did a thorough investigation, and we didn't find a liberal bias."
We did a thorough investigation, and we didn't find a liberal bias.
Biased group looks at self, finds no bias.
If they found no bias, why are they adding the training?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Everyone knows that the truth has a strong bias toward whichever political party we happen to support. Any investigation of bias can also take this into account and therefore show it does not exist. However, it also means we can perceive bias and there can be actual bias where others do not intend to be acting in a biased way.
Real communication is about getting past talking points and ad hominem attacks, of course. About questioning our own beliefs and those of our fellow human beings, and building compromises that drive society forward. About questioning our own biases and being able to work with those whose biases are different. The best is almost always the enemy of the good, in large part because we will always find much more disagreement over what is best.
Real lawyers write in C++
If you mean that both liberals and conservatives are hypocrites and self-contradictory when it comes to individual rights - you're correct (look at liberals who think they have a right to an abortion (based on the fact that you own your own body) but then pass laws requiring that people wear seat belts. (Hey I thought you owned your own body. You can have an abortion but can't decide whether or not to wear a seat belt while on the way to aborting a fetus? Yeah. Good logic there).
But if you're noticing that Trump and Bernie have a lot of overlap in their supporters you're correct.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I suspect that the alleged bias was the result of the bifurcation of "conservative" policy rhetoric. There are some conservative topics that are sensible and traditional, while others are so reactionary as to be utterly baseless. It's ok to be reactionary when you feel that your culture is being dismantled, but don't expect Facebook to promote your shrieks.
This season, we're seeing more of an intellectual/anti-intellectual split... or perhaps a technocrat/populist split. The idea that any group of people in Silicon Valley wouldn't fall pretty squarely on the former categories, compared to the population of the country as a whole, is laughable; but if Facebook was looking for a paleoconventional liberal bias, I can see why they wouldn't necessarily find one. The prevailing economic libertarianism in geek circles covers up a lot of social progressivism if you're looking for a traditional red/blue categorization.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Not wearing a seat belt potentially endangers others (passengers, other drivers who may be struck as a result of avoidable loss of control were the driver to wear a seatbelt). Your freedom to make stupid choices ends when it infringes upon my freedoms.
...the NRA did a thorough investigation, and didn't find a conservative bias.
National Rifle Association founded in 1871. Are you referring to the the oldest civil rights group in america?
Maybe there is a bias - and it exists because the two political factions are not mirror images of each other. Perhaps one of them actually does buy into more conspiracy theories, or their publications do peddle more lies? It could be that even if you run a perfectly objective fact-checking filter it'll appear to favor one side over the other, because that side is, in general, more honest?
Facebook Offers Political Bias Training
Why do they need Political Bias Training? They're already quite good at it!
in other other news the obama DOJ investigated itself and found no wrongdoing
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
where did you learn to drive???? because i cant see how not wearing a seatbelt can result in loss of control, unless someone has some sort of mental disorder which causes them to have a seisure specifically when not wearing a seatbelt that is
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
For the record, the media is slightly left on social issues and hard right on anything economic. Which makes sense when you pay attention to ego owns the media.
I understand why you think that, but you're wrong, it's not "right" on anything economic.
The stance of the "right" is for the market to work things out, that no government action is needed in support of either the corporation or the consumer, and that consumers have the advantage of numbers which protects them just fine if they use it. The stance of the "left" is that big brother needs to protect the consumer because they can't protect themselves.
The media moguls definitely are not in favor of laissez-faire, they want government-supported monopolies (fascism) to protect them against the rise of the independent media sources, bloggers and small outfits which the Internet made far more accessible than ever before.
The "left" likes to say that fascism is a principle of the "right", and points to evidence that "right-wing" politicians often support fascist policies (pro-business government involvement). But that's an invalid argument. Fact is, politicians of all stripes are far more fascist than the people they claim to represent. It's not hard to see evidence of this in "left-wing" groups as well, which is why some are erroneously claiming that Hillary is actually very right-wing. She's not, she's just fascist like all corrupt politicians.
Uh, gun ownership and use is a right. It applies to civilians. It's a civil right.
So, they shot the bias claims full of holes, eh.
Table-ized A.I.
Liberal bias is a problem only if conservative views are good for self and society.
Horseshit. See here
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Of course the National Rifle Association is not a civil right, it's an association. But any association can be concerned with civil rights, even if selectively, as seems likely in their case.
Ezekiel 23:20
It is the people who look to Facebook for valid news who should be trained. Why in the world could they possibly consider Facebook to be a news outlet for anything more significant than cat videos?
No. Not at all. Doesn't go to the hospitals. You don't get the same medical care - if any.
Health care is not a right (as shown by your statement).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Perhaps the War on Drugs would be a much better example of the "you're not allowed to do these things with your body" sentiment of some people, consequences included.
Ezekiel 23:20
Simple:
The conservative politician takes bribes from plutocrats and polluters to claim global warming is fake and that tax-cuts for the rich creates more jobs.
The liberal politician takes bribes from plutocrats and polluters, claims global warming is real and that tax-cuts for the the rich will not create more jobs, YET lets polluters pollute and gives tax-cuts to the rich anyhow.
Table-ized A.I.
Gun ownership is a natural right.
That's not a civil right. See here.
You didn't read your link did you ?
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.
Do you have any statistics on the number of people who were hurt or killed because of someone else not wearing his or her seatbelt? I think I remember one case in the city where I live in the 70s when a mother was killed by one of her children in the backseat who was not wearing his seatbelt (in the 70s, no one in the backseat were wearing their seatbelt), but other than that, I must admit my ignorance.
Since you raised the argument, I'm sure you have valid data to support your argument, right?
Nope.
LOL if that isn't sad and twisted.
So the right to defend yourself and to have the means to do so is not a civil right.
By that reasoning there are no rights.
There has been a steep rise on both sides where individuals on one side are completely disgusted by individuals with opposing views. Liberals are disgusted with conservatives and conservatives are disgusted with liberals. The bias doesn't disturb me. It's the intolerance of opposing views.
Not wearing a seat belt potentially endangers others (passengers, other drivers who may be struck as a result of avoidable loss of control were the driver to wear a seatbelt). Your freedom to make stupid choices ends when it infringes upon my freedoms.
An abortion endangers others (most notably the embryo / fetus). If you make a stupid choice (such as having unprotected sex when you don't want to get pregnant), you deserve it. As always, allowances should be made when the pregnancy didn't result from a choice (eg. rape). If killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, then killing the embryo / fetus should count as a homicide, right?
It's a civil liberty not a civil right.
They aren't mutually exclusive. The grandparent was correct.
The use of a motor-vehicles on public roads is NOT a right. The government can impose whatever rules it wishes for allowing you the privilege of doing so. On private roads you are free to not use seat belts or even make a rule requiring anyone that wishes to use your private road have a blood alcohol content of > 0.8
Both the left and the right are now anti-intellectual (both have ideologies based on emotions). Both the left and the right are now populist (they just cater to different populations). I'm someone who was to the left, but now I'm forced to distance myself from this left because it is now even more anti-intellectual than the right. It's to a point that although I'm an atheist I now view ultra conservative Christians as more reasonable than the average "progressive".
It rather depends on the life, doesn't it? A repeat offender spending most of his life in the slammer is likely an economic dead loss. A humble - but steady and honest - worker? Probably not.
I totally do. What I don't understand is how it's any different in non-socialist countries.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The bias doesn't disturb me. It's the intolerance of opposing views.
As I've always said, if you can't argue the opposing view on any contentious topic, you don't understand the topic and shouldn't hold a strong view. It's so damn easy to attribute the opposing view to malice or trolling, as it takes no effort.
This always pissed me off growing up, when some on the religious right would claim that gays were only have same-sex sex out of a desire to be evil, not a sincere desire for the same sex. Total lack of understanding. More recently I've seem the exact same ignorance in reverse, where people on the progressive left would claim that the only reason conservatives could oppose gay marriage was hatred of gays, and no other reason was sincere. Same total lack of understanding.
Intolerance of opposing views comes mostly from ignorance of the rationale for those views, which is simple intellectual laziness. The worst part is, people seem proud of this ignorance.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Really? So the moment you're not on your property you have no rights? The government can impose whatever rules? How about the rule that one can't speak ill of the government? Do you really want that?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yes, the organization that in recent decades has gained a very strong conservative bias and moved it's primary focus away from gun safety and towards gun rights lobbying. Are you trying to imply that they're centrist?
I'm going to watch the debates and then ask, "which is Dumb and which is Dumber?", I can't tell them apart.
NO, the minute you take a motor-vehicle on a public road you must follow whatever rules the government has imposed for granting you the privilege of using the motor-vehicle on public roads or the government can suspend or revoke your license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads
What you're talking about is a matter of interpretation that has been argued ad infinitum (the definition of when life begins) and has been ruled upon by the courts several times. The "fetal homicide" law is also not applicable in 12 states, and does not cover a decision by the mother, who after all, is the person who likely suffers the greatest consequences of the no doubt difficult decision to abort. It really has very little in common with the clearcut seatbelt case, and attempts to conflate the two are muddled thinking.
lol i wish i had enough time to waste playing mod games on slashdot. but i dont
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
There are plenty of issues on the right (most Obama conspiracies, 6000 year old earth, "creation science") that can't be logically argued. There are also loony left issues (anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, almost anything they peddle at Whole Foods) that can't be logically argued.
On the other hand, I might not agree with everything that the likes of George Will, Paul Ryan, the National Review, or the WSJ say, but at least their views can be respected.
Would this be like the "beating up sooties" training some police departments use? IOW, how not to get caught doing it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No. Not at all. Doesn't go to the hospitals. You don't get the same medical care - if any.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
What does it matter if they do have a bias? They're a private company. In the same way that they're free to be unethical (just not outright illegal) about what data they collect and what they do with it, they're equally free to decide that they want to promote scalping baby seals for millionaires' sexual pleasure. The only motivation they have to pretend otherwise is whether they think they'll lose eyeballs/dollars incrementally in any given scenario. Frankly, I *liked* the idea that they were suppressing conservative bullshit. (Not that I matter to their bottom line; I've never had an account and never will.)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
The NRA will never "return to its roots as a promoter of firearms education and safety" - it is the purchase enforcement arm of the weapon manufacturer industry. What the "liberals" do has nothing to do with their behavior. They will stop at nothing to use guns to take money out of the hands of Americans - the only difference between the weapon industry and muggers is that the industry is willing to give you the whole gun in exchange instead of just the bullets.
Mind you, this is coming from a gun *owner*, but let's call a flintlock a flintlock, okay?
Don't trust any concentration of power.
Liberals have every right to attack your rights, and you have no rights to defend against them taking away your rights.
This is, the essence of the 2nd Amendment, and why it is crucial to understand why it is there in the first place.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The second amendment doesn't say that the government has to give you a gun, merely that it cannot prevent you from owning one. You have to buy your own firearm or make it yourself. You wouldn't claim that the first amendment is invalid because presses are not naturally occurring in the universe either, would you?
I'll hazard a guess that you're in favor of universal healthcare (there tends to be a correlation between a person's stance on that and gun rights) so how could you argue that people have a right to that since modern medicine and doctors are not naturally occurring either?
Socialism works until it fails. Then it fails for just about everyone, since everyone becomes economically equal just before failure. See Greece, Venezuela for fine relatively recent editions of socialism's failure. I'd point to Denmark too, but it hasn't failed completely yet.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Bernie Madoff did what social security does, and he went to jail for it. IT is a ponzi scheme, and just because the government is involved, doesn't change a thing.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm not going to defend UKIP, but do you see the irony in labeling them "an extreme neo-Nazi group" in the comment section of an article about political bias?
I'll grant you they are a far right group with a lot of strong views towards migrants, but from what I can tell, there is no Nazi symbolism on their web site, no call for Jews or other "undesirables" to be exterminated, no stated desire to found a police state dictatorship or any other semblance of recreating the a German-style National Socialist movement.
So they don't seem very neo-Nazi to me, but you seem awfully biased by labeling them as such.
if you can't argue the opposing view on any contentious topic, you don't understand the topic
This was the #1 thing stressed in my speech and debate class. My school was really big on the whole critical thinking thing which seems to be largely absent these days. I suppose it is the natural effect of romanticism beating out enlightenment.
Now get off my lawn.
Thats because most Christians on the right, even if they have wacky views, will give consideration to your viewpoint, before calling you names (if they go down that road). Whereas if a liberal disagrees with you, you're a RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, MISOGYNIST, THEOCRATIC TERRORIST!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Oddly enough, half the anti-gun people I know own guns.
The regular State Dept. email server was ALSO "insecure". It got hacked.
And I doubt Trump is the kind who is careful about IT policy. He's not careful about anything, except maybe his hair.
Table-ized A.I.
What you're talking about is a matter of interpretation that has been argued ad infinitum (the definition of when life begins) and has been ruled upon by the courts several times. The "fetal homicide" law is also not applicable in 12 states, and does not cover a decision by the mother, who after all, is the person who likely suffers the greatest consequences of the no doubt difficult decision to abort.
It really has very little in common with the clearcut seatbelt case, and attempts to conflate the two are muddled thinking.
Um, it has everything to do with people should be able to do stupid things unless it (potentially) hurts another - YOUR argument against seatbelt laws.
I went to school for a long time to learn how to remove bias from measurements. YMMV
There are plenty of issues on the right (most Obama conspiracies, 6000 year old earth, "creation science") that can't be logically argued.
They very much can be, if you bother to understand them. Take creationism. The wonderful talk.origins FAQ website (along with the many FAQs linked off of it) does just that. Turns out a lot of creationism is based on debunking "evolution as taught in high school", which is in fact often wrong, because the textbook was really bad, or oversimplified too far. Realizing that "oh, yeah, no scientist believes that either, it's just nonsense" can lead to actually resolving the disagreement based on proving new information.
Logical arguments can be based on false premises, and still be logical. (A lot of other arguments makes sense if you know a little, but not if you know a lot, but that should never be assumed to be the case.)
In fact, most topics on which intelligent people disagree (often strongly) are simply based on reasoning logically from different starting points, or having different goals in mind because you have different values, leading to people arguing past one another forever.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
The question comes up almost every time I am in a first responder care class. You are required to ask the potential patient if they accept your services before you do anything. So, for example, you happen across a choking victim who is still conscious and you ask if you can help. If they shake their head "no", you cannot touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act.
In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out. If he doesn't pass out, even if he's bleeding and has broken stuff, his stated belief means he isn't going to the hospital.
No, it isn't.
God Made Men
Sam Colt Made Them Equal.
Hmm, is that username taken?
He's right. It's not a "civil right" according to the definition in the link provided, as pedantic as that is.
What it is is more important... it is a Fundamental Right, or a Civil Liberty. It is a Right that predates Governments and is not subject to Government infringement.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Newspapers, ink, pens, don't occur naturally either. Someone I don't think you believe the right to Free Speech and of the Press is not a natural right.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
All these words wasted on a pedantic argument.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'd point to Denmark too, but it hasn't failed completely yet.
Denmark is not socialist. In many ways they are more capitalist than America. They rank higher on the Ease of Doing Business index. There are few barriers to starting a business, and less bureaucracy when running one. Even their Postal Service is privatized.
You are confusing Social Democracy with Socialism. They are two entirely different things.
IT is a ponzi scheme, and just because the government is involved, doesn't change a thing.
Ponzi schemes collapse when no new investors can be found to pay off the old investors. But if the government is doing it, then participation is compelled and there is no danger of collapse. Young people today are almost certainly going to get screwed by SS, and would be much better off investing elsewhere, but they don't have that option.
There are no rights.
Rights are a legal concept that we humans simply made the fuck up. They have no existence in the actual world. Human beings are not born with rights -- where are they, in the liver? in the spleen? You can say that rights are in the soul (another concept humans made the fuck up), or granted by God (yet another concept humans made the fuck up... see a pattern here?) but it still doesn't mean that rights actually exist anywhere. (You can say you spend your nights riding a pink and purple-poka-dotted unicorn, but it still isn't real.)
Now, don't get me wrong -- pretending that rights DO exist is a pretty damn good way to run an actual human society. But forgetting that it's just a game we're all playing is when the world turns weird, because we start to all play by our own sets of made-up rules and keep pretending our rules are real but their rules are just proof that they're evil or stupid.
The guys who wrote the Constitution knew this. That's why the "keep your fucking guns" bit is in there as a right, because guns fucking well do exist in the real world, and they're power. Power to oppress, power to protect, power to defend, power to kill. If you don't have actual power in the world, you will dance to the made-up rules of whoever the fuck does have power. (gun power, political power, money power, whatever works)
But when we forget that we (or people before us) simply made these rules up, then we spend our time screaming at each other over symbols, instead of dealing with reality. If you look back through history, that's usually when reality politely taps humans on the shoulder and presents the butcher's bill. (That was a metaphor. Metaphors usually also don't actually exist, but then I knew that, so I'm not metaphor's bitch.)
or even the Brexit. Or Uber and workers rights. Or Unions.
Fascism is the least of my worries. Government is a tool. A powerful one. It's going to get made and it's going to get used whether anyone likes it or not. The rich have _always_ used gov't. If we put our heads in the sand to hide from facism and try to create "Small" government all that will happen is our Small will be crushed by their large. This is just what happens. Spend a few hours on google or even just listening to the court jesters that pass for a left wing press (Stephen Colber, John Oliver, Samantha Bee) and you can prove it for yourself...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You hit a pothole. Your car seat and steering wheel drop six inches and veer to the left. You don't, because you aren't wearing a seatbelt. You are now in oncoming traffic with no control of the car because you are still 5 inches above your seat and if you yank the steering wheel back to the right, you will rotate and not the wheel.
And what value will investments have if there are no children?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
...the NRA did a thorough investigation, and didn't find a conservative bias.
National Rifle Association founded in 1871. Are you referring to the the oldest civil rights group in america?
You mean the one that supports selling weapons people on the no fly list as likely trsts?
Quickly, explain why you support selling weapons s to them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Uh, gun ownership and use is a right. It applies to civilians. It's a civil right.
Well, to be specific, the rtified second amendments states:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Seing as how that is one sentence, it probably refers as much to the militia as to individual people.
But here is the tough part - "A well Regulated militia". Does this mean that anything but the militias are to be completely unregulated". This is where I think some organizations go wrong.
As a firearm owner and user, I do not see any issues with suspected terrorists not being permitted to own firearms. Why? Because I believe that the "well regulated militia" portion of the second amendment is rather important as it sets the framework for what comes afterwards.
I suspect that if they wanted no restraints they would have made the second amendment as follows:
"Congress shall enact no regulations denying fully free and unfetterd access to the public defense, and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon."
And this is why it is becoming increasingly difficult to support the NRA, and the Congresscritters that they own.
And of course, knowing the rather over the top reactions in here that happen after anyone dares to suggest anything other than allowing anyone no matter their inclination, with free and full access to firearms, This might be the first time in Sashdot history that a person who is a gun owner and user quotes the Second amendment and then gets modded as a troll.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There's no such thing as a natural right. All rights are invented.
. . . and J. J. Thompson made some men More Equal than others (grin)
I wish I lived in your world...
Cheap storage VM.
Teaching the mechanics of reading, writing, and arithmetic is not an end in and of itself. These are foundational skills required in order to learn and explore our world. Along with these skills should by taught logic, critical thinking, and how to evaluate, compare, contrast, and debate. It seems as if society focuses on the mechanical skills of academics without the intellectual skills that give those mechanics context and meaning. It is no wonder that people have trouble with climate science, follow all sorts of unproved nutritional fads, and don't even understand the nature of bias when it slaps them in the behind.
Is the bias in the filtering or in the underlying nature of the stories being filtered?
For example, several polls suggest that the majority of American (85% in January Pew Research report) want expanded background checks for gun purchases. It is reasonable to think that media outlets, who sell clicks by saying what people already believe, would publish stories that reflect this popular bias.
What is unbiased filter? Is it that all views be represented equally? Perhaps it is that all views be represented in proportion to their audience. Is the "values center" (I can't think of a better term just now) clustered around the median of public opinion or the mean of public opinion? If you choose one as your gold standard of "unbiased" then you are inherently biased toward the other. You will make some people happy and others unhappy.
Gallup reported in October, 2015 that 58% of Americans say that marijuana should be legal in the US (several more recent polls show this percentage has increased since then). This is very different than in 1969 when it was just 12% of Americans who said it should be legal. What was once an extreme left wing view, has become a main stream view. Those against legalization were once main stream view but are increasingly becoming a minority view. A similar trend has occurred regarding background checks for gun ownership; according to one poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm) 92% of Americans favor such checks. How then should Facebook filter stories about weed and gun control? Should it try to represent all views equally or should the filtering reflect the changing values of the public. If the American Enterprise Institute wants their views to be heard, should they look to Facebook to tilt the number and types of stories toward the conservative view in order for it be "balanced?"
Should stories confirming climate change science get equal billing with the debunkers?
Should minority views be represented in proportion to their frequency and audience? There are some crazy views out there that really don't deserve equal billing. Then there are some minority stories and opinions (such as this one) that get little attention, but absolutely everyone should read them. Time after time, the minority view (e.g. heliocentrism, theory of relativity, evolution, &etc) has turned out to be worth considering. That what I think, but perhaps I'm biased.
You have a female COO- proof of liberal bias.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bullshit- Trump is a fiscal liberal and Hillary is a sexual liberal. Both are liberals, just different stripes.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sorry, I left my telekinesis in my other pants.
weinersmith
One needs to understand the word 'regulated' as it applies to the amendment, when it was written. Some people mistakenly think it refers only to gov't organized military.
Right, everything needs interpreted. But I look at militia as a militia, consisting of citizens, not necessarily the official military. But that regulated part probably means that they did expect some regulation, not the concept of selling arms to people hwo are expected to use those arms against the rest of the citizenry.
If you deserve to use firearms, then by all means. If you don't, you shouldn't. I don't think that people that have a credible possibility of carrying out terrorist acts should be allowed access to firearms. Others believe that they do.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
More importantly, definitions' sources should be carefully evaluated when it comes to claiming what is and is not a civil right. I've seen some rather...creative claims that ultimately come down to 'I have the right to be given what I want with others footing the bill'--essentially, the right to be Peter Pan, with government as your (sugar) daddy.
Let's see how far you are willing to use that logic.
I believe that you have a credible possibility of carrying out terrorist acts. You already have all the equipment to do so, so you certainly must be planning on murdering as many people as possible.
Nazis
Retards &
Assholes
As most normal people refer to them ..
Just FYI
And No, Those cocksuckers are not a civil rights group anymore than Charles Manson is to movie stars.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
The NRA will never "return to its roots as a promoter of firearms education and safety" ... What the "liberals" do has nothing to do with their behavior.
If the NRA returned to only promoting firearms education and safety, then in short order there would be no shooters to educate because there would be no firearms in civilian hands. Before the "liberals" (and "conservatives" as well) began passing significant anti-gun laws, the NRA supported gun control. That changed at the behest of the membership in the 70s and 80s in response to the CGA and FOPA.
Let's see how far you are willing to use that logic. I believe that you have a credible possibility of carrying out terrorist acts. You already have all the equipment to do so, so you certainly must be planning on murdering as many people as possible.
You might be basing your belief on non-credible information. I have no criminal record, and no signs of instability. On the other hand, Did you know the Orlando shooter tried to purchase 1000 rounds of ammo and high grade body armor a month before he went on the rampage?
You might say hindsight is 20/20, but sorry. The gun shop owner was very suspicious of hime, and called the FBI after he left the shop. Considering the fellow was already under investigation, and now attempts a purchase that particular stuff has very little explanation other than he planned on getting shot at in the near future.
That's exactly the type of person who sholdn't be allowed to have an AR-15.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'd lol except it isn't at all funny that someone so ignorant and stupid and enslaved by the State is allowed to vote and otherwise express their uneducated spoon fed factless opinion.
Yeah, but they let you vote anyway.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
But you have to be capable of making that preference known, and I'm not 100% sure that someone in a horrific accident is going to be A) conscious enough to give that consent and B) coherent enough to think things through, or at least to make the same decision they made when they were healthy. The default action is to provide medical care and save the life in absence of an objection.
touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act. In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out.
In which case, aren't you explicitly going against his stated wishes?
And bringing this thread back to the original context, the original point was that someone should be able to not wear a seat belt and medical bills won't be a problem because he can decline the medical care. He made that choice. But if someone suffers a brain injury due to their decision not to wear a seat belt, I think it's pretty unlikely that he'll be ABLE to tell the medical personnel that they should let him die in the car because he assumed the risk and the consequences. I also think it's unlikely that even if he could, he actually WOULD choose to do that. "I know I said most of my life that I accepted the risks of driving without a seat belt and that I'd die if I got into a huge accident, but now I'm actually dying, so I'm changing my mind." I think most of the folks who say they'd stick to their guns would really do the latter.
Oh, and if you think that "depriving humanity of another life" is "saving a huge expense" then you obviously have no idea how retirement funds work in socialist countries. Hint: look up "Ponzi scheme" on Wikipedia.
Oh God, you're not one of those guys who thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, do you?
Care to explain how it's not, then?
Sure, it's very easy -- in a Ponzi scheme, the people at the top do not get rotated out. In real life, retirees do not live forever -- no matter how long they live, they will eventually leave the system, and every working man and woman pays into the system without exception. So participation is tied to the unemployment rate, not to an individual's decision of whether it's a good idea or not. If we discovered immortality, then yes, the Social Security system would collapse, but that would also be the least of our problems at that point. Now you might say that currently people are living a bit longer and the birth rate has dropped, so the system is paying out more than it takes in, but that's an easy problem to fix -- increase social security taxes a percent or two. It doesn't take an act of God, just Congress (the more cynical might say the former is more likely).
Also, when a social program has been operating for 80 years, it's pretty safe to say that it's not a Ponzi scheme.
Sure, but this time it isn't you deciding. This time it is me, and I say that you are a threat.
Are you ready to give up your fundamental human rights because I think you are not deserving of them? Do you think the person creating the watch lists are going to be any more accurate and careful? I'll answer that one for you, they will not be. The watch lists will be used against political opponents and for personal vendettas, in fact they already are being used for such.
Sure, but this time it isn't you deciding. This time it is me, and I say that you are a threat.
No system is perfect, and sure as shootin' the No Fly list isn't. But your idea that people are going to accuse others of being terrorists - you have the cites of exactly how often that happens? We see all too many times people trying to make perfection the enemy of good.
Indeed, even in this case, the FBI had two incidences of the Orlando gunman being reported to them, and didn't find anything actionable, even when he tried to purchase police grade body armor. Sounds like it takes a bit to actually get yourself dinged.
And I have no doubt that there have been cases of people turning in others frivolously, and Law enforcement might look a little askance at that, so probably not a real good idea to put your threat to the test.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I am not making a threat you fucking dumbass. I am attempting to illustrate to you that such systems are always abused. By that I don't mean occasionally abused, they are constantly abused. Apparently though your skull is just far too thick to comprehend that fact, or maybe you just trust government to take away people's rights in complete secrecy up until the point in which they attempt to exercise those rights and get thrown in jail for it.
You may be okay with living under tyranny, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is okay with it.
I am not making a threat you fucking dumbass.
As you wrote:
Sure, but this time it isn't you deciding. This time it is me, and I say that you are a threat.
So tell me - were you lying? I try to take people at their face value, and you can rest assured thart if I told somone they were a threat, I would mean it, and take all legal actions of reporting them to law enforcement.
Such are dumbasses, eh?
Your rhetoric is an example of exactly how people get themselves into trouble on the internetz. A minor example, and no doubt - considering that I don't suspect you plan to turn me in on a whim, and I have no reason at all to suspect you are any sort of threat. But people do crazy shit like post how they will kill someone, or swear allegience to trrst groups, or how they want to find someone willing to kill their spouse.
But seriously dude, you wrote what you wrote, and texts to not convey sarcasm. I might be a dumbass, but not in that manner.
So stay calm, don't do dumb shit, and keep the tone civil, or at least smart.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
>implying either of those parties are "civil rights groups"
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Because there's no appeal process for the "No Fly" list, primarily. It would need to be reformed such that due process is actually a possibility before I'd support it at all, let alone expanding it to deprive people of anything else.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
"The minute you take your feet on a public sidewalk you must follow whatever rules the government has imposed for granting you the privilege of using your feet on a public sidewalk or the government can suspend or revoke your license to use your feet on a public sidewalk".
See how your argument fails there? The government cannot impose "whatever rules" it wishes; it can't prevent you from exercising your free speech while driving, they can't make you waive your Fifth Amendment rights while driving, etc.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.