It isn't necessarily redefining, but it often is. When you "modify" an automobile by changing the number of wheels from four to two and replacing the internal combustion engine by pedals, you no longer have an automobile, you have a bicycle.
So what got it's definition changed in your example?
The progressive approach [wikipedia.org] is authoritarian. That is, if you want society to make progress, to improve and to provide opportunities for al, then adopting "progressivism" is the wrong ideology because it doesn't actually work very well.
Literally nothing in your link even touches on authoritarianism or on your surrounding claim of digging into the minutia of people's lives. Rather it talks of using broad policies to accomplish social goals in aggregate.
Right, they are not bound to support free speech. They may choose it to varying degrees or not at all.
But, of course, free speech is not a right to be listened to. A site that wants to support free speech is free to also implement a system where other users can choose not to see it and can even make that a default condition for problem posters.
It's not my fantasy. I'm the guy who watches and giggles. Occasionally injecting a practicality or two to see how many gallons of spittle will spew forth as a result.
Suggesting conditions or modifications that would make something no-longer true is not redefining.
Yes, there are libertarians who would prefer the basic income to the current mess. It would likely fly with left-libertarians.
Improving society and providing opportunities for all does not at all need details about any particular individual. Information in aggregate is suffiocient.
Don't confuse the closet authoritarians for people with an actually progressive approach.
All the more reason that subset of preppers wanting more automatic weapons than they have people and such are laughable. Nothing says "I'm going to be a problem for you if I'm not taken out" like being holed up somewhere with weapons mostly suited to killing people.
Bow and arrows, perhaps a hunting rifle, etc suggests someone who won't be a dead weight and willing to be part of a community.
You missed the obvious. You can pull an arrow out of your dead target and use it again. It also doesn't instantly telegraph your location to everyone in the area. Your idea of one shot one kill under adverse conditions with a 22 is ludicrous.
I assume you think I'm 12 because I made you feel stupid and you have to take it out on someone in your mind. Sorry I deflated your internet tough guy routine with facts. You were the one chest thumping about piling up rotting corpses everywhere. You'll be needing more than 10 shots a day if that's your plan.
I'm not a prepper either. I do know how to shoot gun and bow. I know someone who was shot by a.22 and didn't realize it until he sobered up. He got better without going to a doctor. Admittedly, he was hit in his leg, not gutshot, but it does suggest limited stopping power. An arrow would have impeded his movement enough to notice.
You propose that you will aim a.22 for the EYE at any significant distance and not go through a few dozen boxes of ammo in short order! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
As for deer, I see them often enough in my back yard. Once the people who are lost if the nuker and electric can-opener don't work are gone, the deer will multiply significantly.
Again, you're thinking short term. What do you expect to be doing in 10 years? 20? Remember, we're not talking civil unrest or natural disaster, civilization went to hell.
A good bow can last a lifetime and it's easier to 'reload' an arrow.
BTW, if you're hoping to take someone down w/ a.22, you'd better actually hit the heart if you don't want them to kill you back before they drop.
I see you have redefined your terms to suit. If you eliminate the reasons for sales taxes to be regressive, they are no longer regressive. For example, if you don't tax staple foods and other basics and give everyone a basic income, then it need not be regressive. And, I would say at a guess most of the Libertarians I run across would rather rip out their own livers with a spoon than implement a basic income.
The government would need a great deal of information in aggregate, but not so much personally identifiable.
If it seems intrinsic, it is due to lack of imagination (and yes, there are progressives guilty of that as well).
Actually, if income tax is replaced by sales tax, that kills a lot of tracking. Forget the tax breaks and sin taxes. go to basic income and you can get rid of retirement programs. Gun control isn't intrinsic, it's just a common feature. It is entirely feasible for government to not even know where you live (only what P.O. box you have).
Will they actually respect privacy to that degree? Doubt it, but neither will the other choices. But that isn't INTRINSIC.
You're thinking short term. Fine for things like hurricane recovery or a bit of civil unrest, but not for world went to hell. How many YEARS worth of ammo can you squirrel away?
Nonsense. Unless you insist on means testing and demand a zillion measures to prevent 'cheating' (that cost more than the cheating), the whole thing can be more or less anonymous.
His extradition is still under appeal. That is, his local laws have not yet made a final ruling on if he is required to go or not. Surely, you would avail yourself of a legal opportunity to not be extradited. That same extradition agreement you held up says this is his legal right.
I cannot rule out that corruption was involved. I also noticed there was none of the usual bending logic into a pretzel in an attempt to admit the evidence anyway that we see so often. I hope that's just a case of a judge doing the right thing. It's a shame so many judges have brought so much shame to the courts that I have to wonder.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't necessarily redefining, but it often is. When you "modify" an automobile by changing the number of wheels from four to two and replacing the internal combustion engine by pedals, you no longer have an automobile, you have a bicycle.
So what got it's definition changed in your example?
The progressive approach [wikipedia.org] is authoritarian. That is, if you want society to make progress, to improve and to provide opportunities for al, then adopting "progressivism" is the wrong ideology because it doesn't actually work very well.
Literally nothing in your link even touches on authoritarianism or on your surrounding claim of digging into the minutia of people's lives. Rather it talks of using broad policies to accomplish social goals in aggregate.
Right, they are not bound to support free speech. They may choose it to varying degrees or not at all.
But, of course, free speech is not a right to be listened to. A site that wants to support free speech is free to also implement a system where other users can choose not to see it and can even make that a default condition for problem posters.
It's not my fantasy. I'm the guy who watches and giggles. Occasionally injecting a practicality or two to see how many gallons of spittle will spew forth as a result.
Yes, just step into the convenient high school chemistry stock room and ....Wait, where is it?
No I don't dogfuck.
There is a significant difference between having a gun and some ammo and the rabid prepper with 3 AKs and a certainty he can kill'em'all.
It is the latter I laugh at. A bow is still a good idea if you expect thingd to get bad enough that new ammo might be unavailable.
Suggesting conditions or modifications that would make something no-longer true is not redefining.
Yes, there are libertarians who would prefer the basic income to the current mess. It would likely fly with left-libertarians.
Improving society and providing opportunities for all does not at all need details about any particular individual. Information in aggregate is suffiocient.
Don't confuse the closet authoritarians for people with an actually progressive approach.
Exactly. I would say you are much more "ready" than the preppers I'm referring to.
You can make more arrows with a knife if you have to. Try whittling a bullet and some powder.
I never claimed that a .22 is a one-shot kill.
Actually, you effectively did but the spittle was flying in such volume you may not have known what you were saying.
Since you're resorting to insults and name calling, I'll just leave it with "have fun tough-guy"
All the more reason that subset of preppers wanting more automatic weapons than they have people and such are laughable. Nothing says "I'm going to be a problem for you if I'm not taken out" like being holed up somewhere with weapons mostly suited to killing people.
Bow and arrows, perhaps a hunting rifle, etc suggests someone who won't be a dead weight and willing to be part of a community.
Reloading requires supplies. Primers and powder for example. Hard to make out in the woods.
You missed the obvious. You can pull an arrow out of your dead target and use it again. It also doesn't instantly telegraph your location to everyone in the area. Your idea of one shot one kill under adverse conditions with a 22 is ludicrous.
I assume you think I'm 12 because I made you feel stupid and you have to take it out on someone in your mind. Sorry I deflated your internet tough guy routine with facts. You were the one chest thumping about piling up rotting corpses everywhere. You'll be needing more than 10 shots a day if that's your plan.
I'm not a prepper either. I do know how to shoot gun and bow. I know someone who was shot by a .22 and didn't realize it until he sobered up. He got better without going to a doctor. Admittedly, he was hit in his leg, not gutshot, but it does suggest limited stopping power. An arrow would have impeded his movement enough to notice.
You propose that you will aim a .22 for the EYE at any significant distance and not go through a few dozen boxes of ammo in short order! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
As for deer, I see them often enough in my back yard. Once the people who are lost if the nuker and electric can-opener don't work are gone, the deer will multiply significantly.
Again, you're thinking short term. What do you expect to be doing in 10 years? 20? Remember, we're not talking civil unrest or natural disaster, civilization went to hell.
A good bow can last a lifetime and it's easier to 'reload' an arrow.
BTW, if you're hoping to take someone down w/ a .22, you'd better actually hit the heart if you don't want them to kill you back before they drop.
I see you have redefined your terms to suit. If you eliminate the reasons for sales taxes to be regressive, they are no longer regressive. For example, if you don't tax staple foods and other basics and give everyone a basic income, then it need not be regressive. And, I would say at a guess most of the Libertarians I run across would rather rip out their own livers with a spoon than implement a basic income.
The government would need a great deal of information in aggregate, but not so much personally identifiable.
If it seems intrinsic, it is due to lack of imagination (and yes, there are progressives guilty of that as well).
Actually, if income tax is replaced by sales tax, that kills a lot of tracking. Forget the tax breaks and sin taxes. go to basic income and you can get rid of retirement programs. Gun control isn't intrinsic, it's just a common feature. It is entirely feasible for government to not even know where you live (only what P.O. box you have).
Will they actually respect privacy to that degree? Doubt it, but neither will the other choices. But that isn't INTRINSIC.
So you expect to never need to hunt for food? To not need more than a single 22 round to kill an intruder (or food)?
It's giggle time!
You're thinking short term. Fine for things like hurricane recovery or a bit of civil unrest, but not for world went to hell. How many YEARS worth of ammo can you squirrel away?
Nonsense. Unless you insist on means testing and demand a zillion measures to prevent 'cheating' (that cost more than the cheating), the whole thing can be more or less anonymous.
I laugh when I see preppers with their automatic weapons. Where do they think they're going to get the ammo for those when they run out?
If you really expect civilization to go to hell, use arrows.
It is still civil forfeiture, it's just a different aspect of it. That is, it is a forfeiture that happens in the absence of a criminal conviction.
His extradition is still under appeal. That is, his local laws have not yet made a final ruling on if he is required to go or not. Surely, you would avail yourself of a legal opportunity to not be extradited. That same extradition agreement you held up says this is his legal right.
I cannot rule out that corruption was involved. I also noticed there was none of the usual bending logic into a pretzel in an attempt to admit the evidence anyway that we see so often. I hope that's just a case of a judge doing the right thing. It's a shame so many judges have brought so much shame to the courts that I have to wonder.
This is your brain with two strips of bacon.
Not if he is under arrest.
The cops took the lazy way and now a scumbag gets away with his crimes again.