It's a stretch to say that Uber is doing even half of these, if that's what you're inferring. I'm an Uber customer and I have exactly zero complaints about Uber playing "fast and loose" with me.
Do I wish that one senior VP wasn't a total douchebag? yes, that'd be great. But if I refused to use the products and services of every company that had a douchebag senior VP in their ranks, I'd probably have to move to Alaska and start learning how to build everything myself.
Of course, it's highly unlike Trayvon Martin would have ended up killing Zimmerman by slamming his head into the sidewalk. Meanwhile, one gunshot did kill Martin.
I'm not debating whether Martin or Zimmerman were right/wrong. But it's interesting that you bring up a case that actually illustrates the point that guns are the most dangerous weapon, and enable killing where there probably wouldn't be any without guns, or at least, there wouldn't be any in the vast majority of cases. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him, it's likely that no one would be dead, because he probably would never have gotten out of his car.
And enough with your phony "rifles kill less people" stat. I think I addressed that enough above. Only an idiot would not see through your cherry-picking.
I can see this "rifles rifles rifles" mantra is something that's being driven home to you guys reading the pro-gun blogs. I'd like to thank you for making me aware of this bogus cherry-picking statistic. (Rifles, of course, are a small subset of firearms) You don't want to debate why guns are more dangerous than knives. You just want to first claim "oh people will just kill with knives instead of guns" and then do a quick bait-and-switch from "guns" to "rifles" when trying to support the first point.
Does that kind of tactic work when debating people who are actually paying attention? Or do you try to avoid that kind of debate entirely?
Your assumption that I'd like to see rifles or shotguns taken away from people is completely wrong, and based on your wish to cite the above statistics. The argument is about the lethality of knives vs. guns in general - and then you go and cherry-pick a "rifles vs. knives" statistic that obviously has been regurgitated on pro-gun websites ad nauseum, in order to prove a point that no one was even arguing.
If for one minute I thought you were looking to really debate, I'd engage further, but you're obviously just interested in being dishonest about what the debate even is.
Conveniently, of course, that's "rifle" killings, not killing with guns in general. Nice cherry-pick. It's like someone saying that far more people die in Volvos than in Lamborghinis. While technically true, it means nothing regarding the safety of either car.
Your contribution to the conversation is based on a total lie. At least mine was honest.
uh, citation needed. Also, what's the % of knife attacks that end in a fatality vs. the % of shootings that end in a fatality?
Your one-liner sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic found on some pro-gun blog. Thanks for contributing absolutely no common sense to the discussion., because you're too busy defending your rabid "don't away my guns!" quasi-religion.
That's an oft-repeated theme that sounds great in its simplicity, but the sad reality is, we're so addicted to oil as a fuel for our economy that from the standpoint of the US, at least, it WOULD affect us to a great degree if we simply ignored an army of extremists taking over one Arab country after another.
You can debate whether it was a good idea to become so dependent on a region with a culture so different from (and occasionally extremely hostile to) our own, but remember it took most of a century to get to where we are today - and now that we're here, like it or not, it most certainly IS in our interest to fight in the middle east. It's not a great option, and it's a big lie when politicians say we're not over there fighting because of the oil, but from a national security/economic standpoint, it beats the alternative of looking the other way and eventually getting fucked.
Their profits may shrink, but even with so many people "cutting the cord", they're not going bankrupt in your lifetime. They're printing money right now. There's a whole hell of a lot of distance between their current profit margins and bankruptcy.
I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.
It's amazing that you can't see how this part automatically makes everything else you say instantly into garbage. I'm supposing anything about you - like I said, everyone knows a couple of people like you, and it's your single-mindedness that makes you all the same.
Please believe me when I say you're a total douchebag, and even when you're admitting your sock-puppetry you still can't bring yourself to be completely honest.
Your major mental defect politically (if you're really even interested in what your problems are, but I doubt it) is that you look at it like a football game - ie your fake "raging liberal" vs. "hard-core right winger." You care not about the finer points of any issue; everything for you is framed in this black-and-white world, and basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "raging liberal". It's very sad, and the millions who think like you, on both extremes, do a disservice to the vast majority of people who just wish you would all shut the fuck up and let politicians find some kind of middle ground - or, in cases like this, when both parties are at fault, you draw attention away from that fact and try to frame it as a right-vs-left thing. Either way, you're part of the problem, and you can't see it because of your blind "my side must win at all costs!" psychotic attitude.
Add in a healthy dose of passive-aggressive "oh YOU need to calm down, I'm totally rational!" and you've succeeded in completely deluding yourself about how the rest of the world views you. Trust me, we all know one or two people just like you. In real life, we realize quickly it will do no good to try to change your mind with rational discussion, so we just politely decline to talk politics with you and try to ignore the fact that you're a lunatic by having as little contact with you as is required.
Yeah, but the GP was responding to a guy that specifically mentioned having sex as recreational. In other words, kind of the exact opposite of procreative.
It doesn't, but he wasn't "criticizing Democrats" in a vacuum - he framed it in a way that it was clear he was saying "Democrats are more authoritarian than Republicans." Which is bullshit, because they're both terrible at the moment.
Even worse, the same guy most likely posted this AC comment in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he's got support for his read-between-the-lines partisan dog-whistle message. Coward, indeed.
oh right, here's the classic backtrack - you slam "liberal Democrats" as "authoritarian", implying that the opposite of "liberal Democrats" wouldn't be so authoritarian, and then once someone calls you out, "oh I never said that, did I? that's all in YOUR head, you need to calm down!" After all, if you were caught taking a stand for the side you prefer, you've now backed yourself into a corner, and that's so inconvenient when you're trying to prove that you're right.
Don't be an infant. Everyone knows exactly what you meant, and if you really didn't mean that, try harder to not post as if you did.
Oh right. Because the "conservative Republicans" are so against a police state. Spare us your partisan bullshit, please. Both parties are all for as much surveillance as possible, and by laying it at the door of the team you personally hate, you do everyone a disservice and distract from the real issue. For the love of god, please stop it.
$30K is a long long way from $4k. To say "If they didn't have that, they wouldn't be making any money" about $4k per car is ridiculous. Thank you for pointing out that the AC was full of shit.
Apparently no one is allowed to spend a shit load of money helping people without having do-nothing assholes hate on them for it, usually by accusing them of self-promotion and ego boosting. At least be a little bit original.
Oh, you were joking about points one and two as well? or is it that you were just blathering an uninformed opinion, and when another user pointed out you were wrong, you're now claiming the whole post was a joke?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a stretch to say that Uber is doing even half of these, if that's what you're inferring. I'm an Uber customer and I have exactly zero complaints about Uber playing "fast and loose" with me.
Do I wish that one senior VP wasn't a total douchebag? yes, that'd be great. But if I refused to use the products and services of every company that had a douchebag senior VP in their ranks, I'd probably have to move to Alaska and start learning how to build everything myself.
I addressed the fact that you conveniently switched from "guns" to just "rifles." Nice job avoiding that giant hole in your argument yet again.
Of course, it's highly unlike Trayvon Martin would have ended up killing Zimmerman by slamming his head into the sidewalk. Meanwhile, one gunshot did kill Martin.
I'm not debating whether Martin or Zimmerman were right/wrong. But it's interesting that you bring up a case that actually illustrates the point that guns are the most dangerous weapon, and enable killing where there probably wouldn't be any without guns, or at least, there wouldn't be any in the vast majority of cases. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him, it's likely that no one would be dead, because he probably would never have gotten out of his car.
And enough with your phony "rifles kill less people" stat. I think I addressed that enough above. Only an idiot would not see through your cherry-picking.
I can see this "rifles rifles rifles" mantra is something that's being driven home to you guys reading the pro-gun blogs. I'd like to thank you for making me aware of this bogus cherry-picking statistic. (Rifles, of course, are a small subset of firearms) You don't want to debate why guns are more dangerous than knives. You just want to first claim "oh people will just kill with knives instead of guns" and then do a quick bait-and-switch from "guns" to "rifles" when trying to support the first point.
Does that kind of tactic work when debating people who are actually paying attention? Or do you try to avoid that kind of debate entirely?
Your assumption that I'd like to see rifles or shotguns taken away from people is completely wrong, and based on your wish to cite the above statistics. The argument is about the lethality of knives vs. guns in general - and then you go and cherry-pick a "rifles vs. knives" statistic that obviously has been regurgitated on pro-gun websites ad nauseum, in order to prove a point that no one was even arguing.
If for one minute I thought you were looking to really debate, I'd engage further, but you're obviously just interested in being dishonest about what the debate even is.
Conveniently, of course, that's "rifle" killings, not killing with guns in general. Nice cherry-pick. It's like someone saying that far more people die in Volvos than in Lamborghinis. While technically true, it means nothing regarding the safety of either car.
Your contribution to the conversation is based on a total lie. At least mine was honest.
uh, citation needed. Also, what's the % of knife attacks that end in a fatality vs. the % of shootings that end in a fatality?
Your one-liner sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic found on some pro-gun blog. Thanks for contributing absolutely no common sense to the discussion., because you're too busy defending your rabid "don't away my guns!" quasi-religion.
if I had points, I'd mod you insightful AND funny. The best kind of post. thank you sir.
That's an oft-repeated theme that sounds great in its simplicity, but the sad reality is, we're so addicted to oil as a fuel for our economy that from the standpoint of the US, at least, it WOULD affect us to a great degree if we simply ignored an army of extremists taking over one Arab country after another.
You can debate whether it was a good idea to become so dependent on a region with a culture so different from (and occasionally extremely hostile to) our own, but remember it took most of a century to get to where we are today - and now that we're here, like it or not, it most certainly IS in our interest to fight in the middle east. It's not a great option, and it's a big lie when politicians say we're not over there fighting because of the oil, but from a national security/economic standpoint, it beats the alternative of looking the other way and eventually getting fucked.
There was that time he said "I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together."
Their profits may shrink, but even with so many people "cutting the cord", they're not going bankrupt in your lifetime. They're printing money right now. There's a whole hell of a lot of distance between their current profit margins and bankruptcy.
... and THANK YOU for making Americans seem so reasonable, and not reinforcing the stereotype that Europeans already have.
Now you're just being an infant because you missed the OP's point completely, and feel the need to defend an argument that no one was having but you.
I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.
It's amazing that you can't see how this part automatically makes everything else you say instantly into garbage. I'm supposing anything about you - like I said, everyone knows a couple of people like you, and it's your single-mindedness that makes you all the same.
Please believe me when I say you're a total douchebag, and even when you're admitting your sock-puppetry you still can't bring yourself to be completely honest.
Your major mental defect politically (if you're really even interested in what your problems are, but I doubt it) is that you look at it like a football game - ie your fake "raging liberal" vs. "hard-core right winger." You care not about the finer points of any issue; everything for you is framed in this black-and-white world, and basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "raging liberal". It's very sad, and the millions who think like you, on both extremes, do a disservice to the vast majority of people who just wish you would all shut the fuck up and let politicians find some kind of middle ground - or, in cases like this, when both parties are at fault, you draw attention away from that fact and try to frame it as a right-vs-left thing. Either way, you're part of the problem, and you can't see it because of your blind "my side must win at all costs!" psychotic attitude.
Add in a healthy dose of passive-aggressive "oh YOU need to calm down, I'm totally rational!" and you've succeeded in completely deluding yourself about how the rest of the world views you. Trust me, we all know one or two people just like you. In real life, we realize quickly it will do no good to try to change your mind with rational discussion, so we just politely decline to talk politics with you and try to ignore the fact that you're a lunatic by having as little contact with you as is required.
What part of "sex for recreation" didn't you understand? Or have you not heard of the dozens of available methods of birth control?
Yeah, but the GP was responding to a guy that specifically mentioned having sex as recreational. In other words, kind of the exact opposite of procreative.
It doesn't, but he wasn't "criticizing Democrats" in a vacuum - he framed it in a way that it was clear he was saying "Democrats are more authoritarian than Republicans." Which is bullshit, because they're both terrible at the moment.
Even worse, the same guy most likely posted this AC comment in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he's got support for his read-between-the-lines partisan dog-whistle message. Coward, indeed.
oh right, here's the classic backtrack - you slam "liberal Democrats" as "authoritarian", implying that the opposite of "liberal Democrats" wouldn't be so authoritarian, and then once someone calls you out, "oh I never said that, did I? that's all in YOUR head, you need to calm down!" After all, if you were caught taking a stand for the side you prefer, you've now backed yourself into a corner, and that's so inconvenient when you're trying to prove that you're right.
Don't be an infant. Everyone knows exactly what you meant, and if you really didn't mean that, try harder to not post as if you did.
Oh right. Because the "conservative Republicans" are so against a police state. Spare us your partisan bullshit, please. Both parties are all for as much surveillance as possible, and by laying it at the door of the team you personally hate, you do everyone a disservice and distract from the real issue. For the love of god, please stop it.
$30K is a long long way from $4k. To say "If they didn't have that, they wouldn't be making any money" about $4k per car is ridiculous. Thank you for pointing out that the AC was full of shit.
Citation needed.
That was a long way to go for a U2 reference tie-in.
Apparently no one is allowed to spend a shit load of money helping people without having do-nothing assholes hate on them for it, usually by accusing them of self-promotion and ego boosting. At least be a little bit original.
Oh, you were joking about points one and two as well? or is it that you were just blathering an uninformed opinion, and when another user pointed out you were wrong, you're now claiming the whole post was a joke?