As a non drinker, putting this my car only adds cost, complexity and a possible point of vehicular failure, assuming it would by design be difficult to bypass. All that aside, how does calling a slippery slope argument "pathetic" make it invalid?
The say-so of one anonymous caller may well warrant further investigation. Maybe even the deployment of a SWAT team in case it turns out to be true. OTOH doesn't it make sense to figure out what's actually going on before you start shooting people? Yeah stress / split second decisions and all that, but this is not the first (or 50th) time police have killed the people they were supposed to be protecting.
All other arguments aside, I'd like to present two facts and one outcome: Cedric has probably never killed anyone. Officer Justin Rapp has. Because of Rapp's actions, an innocent person Rapp was supposed to be protecting is now dead. Is it presumptuous of me to hold the opinion police shooting innocent people is a bad thing?
The fact that you're ignorant enough to refer to a one-in-many-million occurrence as "likely"...
Given that we hear about several deaths caused by SWAT invasions each year, either your anally-produced numbers are wildly incorrect or there are millions and millions of SWAT raids per year. The fact is an innocent person was killed. By the very people who were supposed to be protecting said person. How many accidental and completely preventable murders / killings / accidental executions * of innocent people would be an acceptable number, in your opinion?
*It's hard to neutrally term the act of intentionally discharging a firearm into someone causing them to die, isn't it?
Just to clarify... is he going to prison before or after Jesus comes back? I keep hearing both of these things are just around the corner (and they may be) but somehow they both keep not happening.
There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president.
You keep consoling yourself with that delusion sweetheart
I'd like to take this moment to point out that the president has not in fact been convicted of anything. Reality may not agree with your feelings, but it's still reality.
They were living in a city built around the trash falling from the "good" city floating in the sky. It's a giant anarchic slum with a murder roller derby for entertainment. I got the impression this was an accepted way to be able to do things like eat.
...and dumb as rocks.
You did catch the part where he's a street hoodlum and part of a mugging gang, right? Do we really need more Mary Sues? Isn't it enough that he changed and stopped doing that by the end of the movie?
Since the movie has nothing about SJWs or Manspreading in it...
So Brie Larson didn't describe it as a "big feminist movie"? And it wasn't timed to be released on Woman's Day? And it doesn't have a Mary Sue character? And any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"? Well then, I guess you're right. Nothing to see here, move along....
The word you're looking for here is "cyborg". Yeah, with a boyfriend. Are you a silly jerk in real life too or is it just when hiding as an AC behind a keyboard?
See "nazi". It doesn't really mean anything anymore. Kinda like how incel is getting. You can call people names but if you refuse to counter their ideas with better ones nobody but your in-group will think of you as anything other than a name calling jerk, 'cause that's what you're showing the world you are. Think about it. Or you can learn nothing and fire up the ad hominem again...
Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group.
Yes, and that preference is usually based on group characteristics rather than, for instance, skill / ability to perform the job in question.
The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless...
So how is this second quoted statement in any way compatible with your first quoted statement? If you give "preference" based on group identity, how is this fair in an otherwise competence based assessment? Are you sure you've thought this through?
Google says October of 2015 'till February of 2017. That was a strange thing... you have a product that pushes two different items, nude women and good writing. Someone bitches loudly enough and you remove one of those things you're known for. Could this be an early iteration of "get woke go broke"?
Easy! Just be white. Really, that's all it takes to be called a racist, almost always by someone shooting for points in the oppression olympics or trying to score brownie points by signaling. For extra claims of racism, just point out when (insert oppressed minority label here) is being racist. That'll do the trick in spades!
Any video that champions inclusivity for all while almost completely excluding half the human population (they had one man who they needed to spew the anti white man line) is a prime example of SJW crap not worth your time or consideration.
Funny how some many anti-Trump "liberals" seem to be homophobic. So I'm gay, Trump is gay, ghosts are real, I'm tiny and don't have testicles? Well, at least you're funny, I'll give you that.
"Billionares" aren't illegal in this country, full stop. Wealth makes it easier to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of breaking the law, but only to a degree. For example, look at this guy. He's 80 and will be out of prison in 150 years.
Do you seriously consider a politician (or anyone operating at a level where you address Congress) lying to be a noteworthy event?
I'm sure there are any number of reasons why they would lie, but I wouldn't be the right person to explain their actions to you.
That is literally an argument for the legalization of the possession and distribution for child pornography.
Only if you've presupposed that the nature of the material is actually pornographic in nature. At a certain point, you'd think there's a point where a judgement call needs to be made. What if there's a picture of a car with a kid on a swing way off in the background? Probably safe. Kid posed in a sexual position without clothes? Probably not. There's a spectrum in between those two extremes. If we can't make a moral judgement, how do we make the call when a picture is over the limit? Or did I misunderstand your argument?
Slashdot Mirror
As a non drinker, putting this my car only adds cost, complexity and a possible point of vehicular failure, assuming it would by design be difficult to bypass.
All that aside, how does calling a slippery slope argument "pathetic" make it invalid?
The say-so of one anonymous caller may well warrant further investigation. Maybe even the deployment of a SWAT team in case it turns out to be true.
OTOH doesn't it make sense to figure out what's actually going on before you start shooting people?
Yeah stress / split second decisions and all that, but this is not the first (or 50th) time police have killed the people they were supposed to be protecting.
All other arguments aside, I'd like to present two facts and one outcome:
Cedric has probably never killed anyone.
Officer Justin Rapp has.
Because of Rapp's actions, an innocent person Rapp was supposed to be protecting is now dead.
Is it presumptuous of me to hold the opinion police shooting innocent people is a bad thing?
You mean shooting the people you're supposed to be protecting engenders ill will? Who would have thought!
The fact that you're ignorant enough to refer to a one-in-many-million occurrence as "likely"...
Given that we hear about several deaths caused by SWAT invasions each year, either your anally-produced numbers are wildly incorrect or there are millions and millions of SWAT raids per year.
The fact is an innocent person was killed. By the very people who were supposed to be protecting said person. How many accidental and completely preventable murders / killings / accidental executions * of innocent people would be an acceptable number, in your opinion?
*It's hard to neutrally term the act of intentionally discharging a firearm into someone causing them to die, isn't it?
Wouldn't it be easier to have her identify as a different size so as to fit in an unused (but ready) suit?
I moderated the above post funny but it just gave a score of 1.
:-\
Posting to remove my mod.
Just to clarify... is he going to prison before or after Jesus comes back? I keep hearing both of these things are just around the corner (and they may be) but somehow they both keep not happening.
There is evidence, but someone decided it wasn't enough to convict the president.
You keep consoling yourself with that delusion sweetheart
I'd like to take this moment to point out that the president has not in fact been convicted of anything. Reality may not agree with your feelings, but it's still reality.
The boyfriend was a liar, a thief, a murderer...
They were living in a city built around the trash falling from the "good" city floating in the sky. It's a giant anarchic slum with a murder roller derby for entertainment. I got the impression this was an accepted way to be able to do things like eat.
...and dumb as rocks.
You did catch the part where he's a street hoodlum and part of a mugging gang, right? Do we really need more Mary Sues? Isn't it enough that he changed and stopped doing that by the end of the movie?
fuck off ivan go back to sucking putins cock for your daily vodka
Such an eloquent rebuttal of his argument and the facts contained therein!
Sure changed my mind, I'll tell you.
Yeah, but if you simply call yourself a liberal, then redefine racism and sexism carefully so they don't include you, you're all set.
Since the movie has nothing about SJWs or Manspreading in it...
So Brie Larson didn't describe it as a "big feminist movie"?
And it wasn't timed to be released on Woman's Day?
And it doesn't have a Mary Sue character?
And any legitimate criticism of the movie hasn't been met with cries of "incel" or "mysogynist" or "troll"?
Well then, I guess you're right. Nothing to see here, move along....
Alita was fucking stupid.
As are some people's opinions.
Bug-eyed LGBTQ cunt on rollerblades
The word you're looking for here is "cyborg". Yeah, with a boyfriend.
Are you a silly jerk in real life too or is it just when hiding as an AC behind a keyboard?
Only if you're an MRA snowflake idiot.
See "nazi". It doesn't really mean anything anymore. Kinda like how incel is getting. You can call people names but if you refuse to counter their ideas with better ones nobody but your in-group will think of you as anything other than a name calling jerk, 'cause that's what you're showing the world you are.
Think about it.
Or you can learn nothing and fire up the ad hominem again...
Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group.
Yes, and that preference is usually based on group characteristics rather than, for instance, skill / ability to perform the job in question.
The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless...
So how is this second quoted statement in any way compatible with your first quoted statement?
If you give "preference" based on group identity, how is this fair in an otherwise competence based assessment?
Are you sure you've thought this through?
Google says October of 2015 'till February of 2017.
That was a strange thing... you have a product that pushes two different items, nude women and good writing. Someone bitches loudly enough and you remove one of those things you're known for.
Could this be an early iteration of "get woke go broke"?
What were you called racist for?
Easy!
Just be white.
Really, that's all it takes to be called a racist, almost always by someone shooting for points in the oppression olympics or trying to score brownie points by signaling.
For extra claims of racism, just point out when (insert oppressed minority label here) is being racist. That'll do the trick in spades!
This! At the very least get someone who understands how exposure works.
Any video that champions inclusivity for all while almost completely excluding half the human population (they had one man who they needed to spew the anti white man line) is a prime example of SJW crap not worth your time or consideration.
Funny how some many anti-Trump "liberals" seem to be homophobic. So I'm gay, Trump is gay, ghosts are real, I'm tiny and don't have testicles?
Well, at least you're funny, I'll give you that.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens
"Billionares" aren't illegal in this country, full stop.
Wealth makes it easier to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of breaking the law, but only to a degree.
For example, look at this guy. He's 80 and will be out of prison in 150 years.
Do you seriously consider a politician (or anyone operating at a level where you address Congress) lying to be a noteworthy event?
I'm sure there are any number of reasons why they would lie, but I wouldn't be the right person to explain their actions to you.
That is literally an argument for the legalization of the possession and distribution for child pornography.
Only if you've presupposed that the nature of the material is actually pornographic in nature. At a certain point, you'd think there's a point where a judgement call needs to be made.
What if there's a picture of a car with a kid on a swing way off in the background? Probably safe.
Kid posed in a sexual position without clothes? Probably not.
There's a spectrum in between those two extremes. If we can't make a moral judgement, how do we make the call when a picture is over the limit?
Or did I misunderstand your argument?