I'm neither democrat nor republican, but looking at how democrats and republicans act, the confirmation bias for "their side" is absolutely astounding, and you can't point it out to them - they go nuts.
Just looking at all the comments above this point pretty much proves your point.:^)
I've stopped voting for the two main parties myself. My votes have been pretty fairly spread between Reps, Dems, and third party. For the last presidential election I went with the Green Party choice. Maybe next year I'll finally go Libertarian, if they field a better candidate than usual.
Where did I say I have a gun? I haven't owned a gun since I was a farmkid 30 years ago. In the military I had range qualification once a year, and since then I've fired a friend's gun a couple times. Between the two of us, you are the gun nut for even owning one, much less claiming you could have been a sniper.
So please go shove your fearful child nonsense up your self-righteous ass. While you are at it, make sure the anti-gun-nuts don't find out you have those Constitutionally-protected devices around, or they'll lynch you while you try to explain how you are really on their side.
Vice president Cheney shot a man in the face with birdshot. It barely broke the skin. And the victim was 78 years old. Skin gets easier to tear as we get older.
Self defense isn't murder. That you think people are allowed to spy on your children and you have no recourse other than hiding inside your house says all we need to know about you as well.
Two easy points of dispute. A) They use guns made/modified specifically to shoot that target. A standard shotgun some guy has behind his door for protection is going to have a very different pattern. B) How do you know this guy is such a crack shot?
And a third easy point, that has been mentioned many times above, is that shooting vertically, at a drone above you, limits the maximum range of the shot.
The article mentions "200 feet" and "60 to 80 [feet]", not yards. The OP is making a joke that metric weenies either don't know the conversion from yards to feet, or that they are incapable of multiplying/dividing by 3 to convert between feet and yards.
Way to perpetuate the 'metric weenies have no sense of humor' stereotype.
What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.
Except for the fact that he's more intelligent than they are, vastly more experienced and knowledgable, much richer, and twice their size. Except those things, he doesn't have any power over them.
Except for the fact those qualities don't come into play in the scenario I described.
More intelligent - why does that matter for having sex? Dumb people aren't allowed? More experienced - in having sex, or in life in general? Moot point anyway. More knowledgeable - again, about sex or life in general? Another moot point. Richer - A) not necessarily, B) that doesn't matter among adults' rights to have sex, why would it here? Bigger - Did I say he grabbed the kids and dragged them off to the bushes?
Sorry, you post doesn't explain at all why it makes sense to distinguish between adults and children concerning sex, which was the point my first post was responding to. Nothing in your arguments establishes any real power over children other than brute force. If the sex doesn't involve brute force, the claims of the adult being smarter or richer don't seem to be a valid reason to prevent it.
As a final point, what if the adult was a 120-pound woman in her 30s, and she approached a group of athletic teenage boys (who are still below age of consent in their state) who are from rich and influential families? Your arguments don't hold up at all.
What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.
While I do agree that our society puts too much force on the taboo of nudity, I think the ones who fight against it face the risk of simply giving free license to every pervert to do whatever they want, including pedophilia and incest. How exactly do you draw that line, without someone feeling they are being discriminated against?
Is it ok for adults to have sex with children too? Is it ok to record those that do? If age is just an 'number thing' then why discriminate who can participate?
No, I'm sure that person was completely sincere. I've seen it many times here on/. and other discussion sites. It usually is in the vein of "The common people are ignorant morons, so we must silence them and ignore them so that we (the intelligent benevolent overlords) can properly rule them without disruption."
The sad thing is that I've seen it from people on the far left, far right, and centrists of the political range. Seems like most groups want to silence their opposition.
When I worked on a military base a while back, there was a young female in the group whose last name was Trim. I never made a comment on it until the last couple days I was going to be there, and only in response to her making a remark like "some guys snicker" when hearing her name. I told her it was one of the first thought in my mind months earlier, but couldn't say anything.
Could be worse though. In World War II, there was an Admiral Kuntz. He has a road and access gate named after him at Pearl Harbor. Imagine being his daughters.
Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked to explicitly says that my definition is what most people consider to be correct. It's only a new generation of 'dinosaur experts' that have decided they don't like that definition, and have came up with a new classification system. Now, only one particular group of ancient reptiles counts as dinosaurs, based solely on their hip joint, even though many of that group don't fit at all the classic view of dinosaurs.
As a point of fact, the term 'dinosaur' is itself mis-descriptive because neither part of the word is particularly accurate to the new classification. I guess the word should join phlogiston on the heap of discredited scientific lore.
---------------
Fine. I get it. New crops of scientists have different views from their predecessors. They look at things from a different angle, make different assumptions, and produce different classifications. Eventually new models are agreed on, even though those new models are also open to re-interpretation by the next wave of scientists. So, just as I'll wait for Pluto to again be called a planet in its own right, I'll wait for dinosaurs to include ancient reptiles that seem to fit the template better than the hummingbird does.
My first thought on that was that surely crocodiles, alligators, and turtles are also modern descendants of the dinosaur lineage. I don't think they evolved from small mammals.
Actually, Doctors can tell that bill to go fuck itself.
Actually, the governor just did that by vetoing it.
The state is not a medically-licensed entity. It has no right to practice medicine.
"The state" is the entity that does the licensing. It has the authority to determine what doctors can, can't, or must do in various situations. Usually, these rules are made with input from medical professionals, or written by the medical community itself, then passed into law through the state legislature, and signed by the governor. In this case, this one rule change was stopped at that last point. Why you are attacking me for pointing that out is... Actually, again, I don't know what that is, other than misguided.
Judges that make medical decisions are explicitly practicing medical fraud.
Not that that has been mentioned above, but I'm sure judges use their authority given to them by the same state that licenses medical professionals, when they make medical decisions. You may not agree with them, but you can't prove your claim of "medical fraud".
And the medical doctors have every right to file suit and/or the medical association may levy fines, as it is firmly within their jurisprudence.
????? Again, no idea what your point is.
Please try again when you possess any form of medical licensing and have read the rights which are afforded to you when you obtain said licensing.
It doesn't take being a licensed medical professional (doctor, nurse, dentist, psychiatrist, etc.) to understand a law that applies to them. By the way, laws don't grant rights, whichever ones you may be claiming here. Laws may define or stipulate a certain authority, responsibility, or privilege, especially for groups that work within other rights observed by the system. So get back to me when you actually understand the laws which you are trying to attack. So far you have just been tilting at windmills.
It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".
The post I responded to specifically was about raving lunatics. Are you sure doctors can't already detain raving lunatics in the state this article is about?
The first response to that post denied that raving lunatics can be detained, and for proof it was stated that they can be detained. I pointed out the error of that post.
Now, you are just as blind in your reaction, making a statement you surely don't know the accuracy of, because of some personal bias that isn't my concern.
So, I will state again, for all you idiots out there: If a person is a raving lunatic,which implies being an immediate danger to themselves and others, the legal and medical systems already have laws/rules/procedures in place to handle the situation. Period. End of lecture.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. My previous response was far too long, and completely ruins the effect of this one. Regardless, let me come in again:
Did you even watch the goddamn video you linked to?
Yes...
NEXT question!
Mr. Fustakrakich, what do you think of Donald Trump's comment on Megan Kelly?
I'm neither democrat nor republican, but looking at how democrats and republicans act, the confirmation bias for "their side" is absolutely astounding, and you can't point it out to them - they go nuts.
Just looking at all the comments above this point pretty much proves your point. :^)
I've stopped voting for the two main parties myself. My votes have been pretty fairly spread between Reps, Dems, and third party. For the last presidential election I went with the Green Party choice. Maybe next year I'll finally go Libertarian, if they field a better candidate than usual.
No, we have a sense of humour.
The irony that you think this is true is priceless.
It's altogether more civilised and allows for nuance, subtlety and more advanced forms of wit.
You get all that just for knowing how to divide by ten? Amazing.
All of which were sadly absent from the alleged joke about weenies.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a joke that prodded you weenies in just the right place.
As I said, you metric weenies have no sense of humor (at least when it comes to anything referring to the metric system).
Where did I say I have a gun? I haven't owned a gun since I was a farmkid 30 years ago. In the military I had range qualification once a year, and since then I've fired a friend's gun a couple times. Between the two of us, you are the gun nut for even owning one, much less claiming you could have been a sniper.
So please go shove your fearful child nonsense up your self-righteous ass. While you are at it, make sure the anti-gun-nuts don't find out you have those Constitutionally-protected devices around, or they'll lynch you while you try to explain how you are really on their side.
Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean that people are not spying on him with toy helicopters with cameras strapped to them.
Vice president Cheney shot a man in the face with birdshot. It barely broke the skin. And the victim was 78 years old. Skin gets easier to tear as we get older.
Self defense isn't murder. That you think people are allowed to spy on your children and you have no recourse other than hiding inside your house says all we need to know about you as well.
Damn them for insisting that the Constitution safeguards their rights as well as yours.
Why do you think it only protects your rights, and not theirs?
Two easy points of dispute. A) They use guns made/modified specifically to shoot that target. A standard shotgun some guy has behind his door for protection is going to have a very different pattern. B) How do you know this guy is such a crack shot?
And a third easy point, that has been mentioned many times above, is that shooting vertically, at a drone above you, limits the maximum range of the shot.
The article mentions "200 feet" and "60 to 80 [feet]", not yards. The OP is making a joke that metric weenies either don't know the conversion from yards to feet, or that they are incapable of multiplying/dividing by 3 to convert between feet and yards.
Way to perpetuate the 'metric weenies have no sense of humor' stereotype.
Except for the fact that he's more intelligent than they are, vastly more experienced and knowledgable, much richer, and twice their size. Except those things, he doesn't have any power over them.
Except for the fact those qualities don't come into play in the scenario I described.
More intelligent - why does that matter for having sex? Dumb people aren't allowed?
More experienced - in having sex, or in life in general? Moot point anyway.
More knowledgeable - again, about sex or life in general? Another moot point.
Richer - A) not necessarily, B) that doesn't matter among adults' rights to have sex, why would it here?
Bigger - Did I say he grabbed the kids and dragged them off to the bushes?
Sorry, you post doesn't explain at all why it makes sense to distinguish between adults and children concerning sex, which was the point my first post was responding to. Nothing in your arguments establishes any real power over children other than brute force. If the sex doesn't involve brute force, the claims of the adult being smarter or richer don't seem to be a valid reason to prevent it.
As a final point, what if the adult was a 120-pound woman in her 30s, and she approached a group of athletic teenage boys (who are still below age of consent in their state) who are from rich and influential families? Your arguments don't hold up at all.
What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.
While I do agree that our society puts too much force on the taboo of nudity, I think the ones who fight against it face the risk of simply giving free license to every pervert to do whatever they want, including pedophilia and incest. How exactly do you draw that line, without someone feeling they are being discriminated against?
Is it ok for adults to have sex with children too? Is it ok to record those that do? If age is just an 'number thing' then why discriminate who can participate?
No, I'm sure that person was completely sincere. I've seen it many times here on /. and other discussion sites. It usually is in the vein of "The common people are ignorant morons, so we must silence them and ignore them so that we (the intelligent benevolent overlords) can properly rule them without disruption."
The sad thing is that I've seen it from people on the far left, far right, and centrists of the political range. Seems like most groups want to silence their opposition.
When I worked on a military base a while back, there was a young female in the group whose last name was Trim. I never made a comment on it until the last couple days I was going to be there, and only in response to her making a remark like "some guys snicker" when hearing her name. I told her it was one of the first thought in my mind months earlier, but couldn't say anything.
Could be worse though. In World War II, there was an Admiral Kuntz. He has a road and access gate named after him at Pearl Harbor. Imagine being his daughters.
Is this your first time on slashdot?
I'd rather have that than have the Democrats and liberals selling dead baby parts to the highest bidder.
Hand up for all those that have no idea what it refers to.
Of course there are no people. Look what happened to all the pedestrians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, but that's a social hack, not a technological one.
Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked to explicitly says that my definition is what most people consider to be correct. It's only a new generation of 'dinosaur experts' that have decided they don't like that definition, and have came up with a new classification system. Now, only one particular group of ancient reptiles counts as dinosaurs, based solely on their hip joint, even though many of that group don't fit at all the classic view of dinosaurs.
As a point of fact, the term 'dinosaur' is itself mis-descriptive because neither part of the word is particularly accurate to the new classification. I guess the word should join phlogiston on the heap of discredited scientific lore.
---------------
Fine. I get it. New crops of scientists have different views from their predecessors. They look at things from a different angle, make different assumptions, and produce different classifications. Eventually new models are agreed on, even though those new models are also open to re-interpretation by the next wave of scientists. So, just as I'll wait for Pluto to again be called a planet in its own right, I'll wait for dinosaurs to include ancient reptiles that seem to fit the template better than the hummingbird does.
Well, sure, if you redefine the word 'dinosaur'.
Oh look. That's what they did.
I'll stick with the old definition of dinosaur: reptiles that lived millions of years ago.
My first thought on that was that surely crocodiles, alligators, and turtles are also modern descendants of the dinosaur lineage. I don't think they evolved from small mammals.
I honestly do not know what your point here is.
Actually, Doctors can tell that bill to go fuck itself.
Actually, the governor just did that by vetoing it.
The state is not a medically-licensed entity. It has no right to practice medicine.
"The state" is the entity that does the licensing. It has the authority to determine what doctors can, can't, or must do in various situations. Usually, these rules are made with input from medical professionals, or written by the medical community itself, then passed into law through the state legislature, and signed by the governor. ... Actually, again, I don't know what that is, other than misguided.
In this case, this one rule change was stopped at that last point. Why you are attacking me for pointing that out is
Judges that make medical decisions are explicitly practicing medical fraud.
Not that that has been mentioned above, but I'm sure judges use their authority given to them by the same state that licenses medical professionals, when they make medical decisions.
You may not agree with them, but you can't prove your claim of "medical fraud".
And the medical doctors have every right to file suit and/or the medical association may levy fines, as it is firmly within their jurisprudence.
????? Again, no idea what your point is.
Please try again when you possess any form of medical licensing and have read the rights which are afforded to you when you obtain said licensing.
It doesn't take being a licensed medical professional (doctor, nurse, dentist, psychiatrist, etc.) to understand a law that applies to them. By the way, laws don't grant rights, whichever ones you may be claiming here. Laws may define or stipulate a certain authority, responsibility, or privilege, especially for groups that work within other rights observed by the system.
So get back to me when you actually understand the laws which you are trying to attack. So far you have just been tilting at windmills.
It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".
The post I responded to specifically was about raving lunatics. Are you sure doctors can't already detain raving lunatics in the state this article is about?
The first response to that post denied that raving lunatics can be detained, and for proof it was stated that they can be detained. I pointed out the error of that post.
Now, you are just as blind in your reaction, making a statement you surely don't know the accuracy of, because of some personal bias that isn't my concern.
So, I will state again, for all you idiots out there: If a person is a raving lunatic,which implies being an immediate danger to themselves and others, the legal and medical systems already have laws/rules/procedures in place to handle the situation. Period. End of lecture.