It must be nice to only be able to see the world in black or white, where complex situations are either one thing, or one other.
How was that a 'complex situation'? How would you like me to simplify it?
Such a flawless logic system wouldn't ever open you up to being manipulated into supporting certain things that might not actually be in your or your peers' interests, either. Oh no.
What in the holy hell are you talking about, and how does it apply to anything we are discussing?
No, we targeted military assets and war production. Unfortunately, those are generally in the area near civilians, and we didn't have fancy laser guided bombs in WWII. We were literally dropping explosives out of planes thousands of feet in the air and hoping that they hit something. It was the only option we had at the time.
Do you really think that Generals were sitting around figuring out how to kill civilians? Or do you maybe think they were trying to figure out how to destroy Japan's capability to produce more planes and tanks? Which seems more likely to you?
Well, hell, Google's homepage doesn't "dispute your assertion" either. You might as well have linked to that instead of the Wikipedia page. The point was that your link didn't provide any proof to your "assertion" (which you had earlier claimed was a "little known fact")
...but we intentionally aimed at civilians...
Quickly becomes...
...the civilian casualties seemingly were intentional...
Looks like a whole lot of backtracking to me.
...even if you drop leaflets asking people to leave their homes (and go where exactly?)
Well, here's a crazy little guess: OUTSIDE OF THE CITY UNTIL THE BOMBING IS OVER... EXACTLY!
God, I love when people can't admit when they are wrong, even when their own quotes/links prove them wrong.
I read through the section you linked to, and I saw nothing to back up your assertion. In fact, I found quite the opposite. Maybe you should read your own link:
Leaflets were dropped over cities before they were bombed, warning the people and urging them to escape the city.
Sad to lose the director of my favorite movie of all time (not just SW movie). I know that most wouldn't put it that high on their list, but it shined far above all the other movies in the best trilogy ever.... and I'm a bit of a SW nut:-)
Ha, that's so funny that you said 'fail'. Very modern-hip, internet-ish of you. Anyways, back to the topic at hand...
He said BABIES not unborn fetuses,
So, you don't consider 'unborn fetuses' to be babies? Do they magically change from fetus into baby when they move out of the womb? What is it that changes them? I'd like to know.
Whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, you can't dodge the irrefutable fact that before an abortion, there is a living baby, and after the abortion, there is a dead baby. And abortion is 100% legal in the US, so there is nothing to stop a couple from getting rid of 'unwanted' babies.
Also now you're changing the original poster's message.
No, the original poster's message is that unwanted babies (oops, sorry, 'fetuses' if that makes you feel less queasy) are killed in China, and that could also happen in ANY country where you enact a one child policy.
Yeah, because there is no way to tell the sex of the baby while it is still in the womb, and we don't have test to detect certain disabilities either. Oh, shit, we do have those capabilities? Well, then women can just murder their unwanted babies while still in the womb. Oh, but that isn't 'murder' to you.
But from a societal perspective, it starts to put a bigger wedge between the haves and have-nots. Entertainment/Sports/etc. becomes a industry that can be enjoyed only if you have a certain amount of wealth.
Now ENTERTAINMENT is some sort of inherent right? Dang, the entitlement mentality in this country knows no bounds.
It was the act of a third party that may have priced out a potential consumers.
Um, it they are selling them for 2X the price, then people are still showing up for the concerts. If the scalper price is too high, they will go out of business.
...were forcibly removed from their jobs and educational endeavors and relocated to internment camps,...
Not relevant to the discussion, and not even in the same ballpark as being searched at the airport. Not sure why you brought it up.
..profiling is also quite useless.
Wrong or right, I doubt Israel airport security would agree with you that it is 'useless'.
How about violating constitutional rights? How about violating human rights?
The intent of my post seems to have been lost on a lot of people. I'm not saying that profiling is OK. I'm just questioning why it's OK to violate EVERYBODY'S constitutional/human rights(groping/naked scans), but it is suddenly so wrong if we violate those same rights... IN THE SAME WAY... on a certain group.
the percentage of Arab Muslims who are actually terrorists is quite small.
Well, then the percentage of the general population who are actual terrorist is even smaller. Wouldn't that mean that the random invasive searches are even a bigger waste of time then profiling?
and you're much better off finding much more specific ways to target your search.
"They came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist..."
We are way, way past that little saying. They've already come for EVERYBODY.
I think the point is that it's stupid that the government thinks that it is bad to violate a certain group's rights (profiling), but it's just fine to randomly violate everybody's rights (groping).
I think another point is that the government keeps telling us that these bullshit 'procedures' are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Well, who are the terrorist 99% of the time? Arab Muslims. So the government is admitting (in a roundabout way), that we should fear these terrorist, who are primarily Arab Muslims. But, when it comes time to actually protects us, they say, "Uh, we don't want to offend this group of people, so we are going to treat you all like terrorists."? Well, which is more important; protecting us, or not offending a group of people?
I'm pretty sure sure that limited implies some government. Some is more than none. Therefore, your statement makes no sense.
...private corporations would fulfill the rendering of critical goods and services..
And I could choose not to do business with them. Whew! That was tough solving that sticky situation.
..giving the power over these critical facets of life into their hands.
Yeah, thank goodness that private corporations don't control the distribution of our food, fuel, shelter, transportation and other critical facets of life! I can't image how that would turn out!!!
Then you should be driving in the left lane(s) if you are going slower than the rest of the traffic. Let the faster traffic pass you on the right. You aren't required to drive at the same speed as everyone else.
There are many highways that are 70 mph in California (large stretches of I-5 is the first to come to mind). Of course, speed limit is not a minimum required speed...
Well, you COULD drive 65. Speed limit (especially on a highway where you could drive in the slower lane) does not mean you have to drive at least that speed...
..make them unable to go many places an exo could go.
To bad the exo can't get their either. From TFA:
...the version demonstrated on this day runs off hydraulic power from the Sarcos shop. Smith said chemically powered batteries such as lithium ions are not powerful enough to run the suit for eight to 24 hours at a time.
So, what does an intruder sound like? Do they have a little bell or alarm on them? Do they walk around my house yelling "Intruder in your house!"?
...call the police,...
What the hell should I do in the meantime while I wait for the police if the intruder stumbles upon me?
...avoid the intruder.
What if he doesn't avoid me?
Chances are he has no interest in a fight unless provoked. The likelihood of someone invading a home with intent to harm the occupants is vanishingly small.
Well, if you want to put your safety in your belief that you are statistically safe, that's your prerogative. Too bad the actual statistics tell a different story:
http://bumpkeywarning.com/HomeInvasionStatistics.htm
According to a United States Department of Justice report:
* 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
...BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes)
Wow, you can't stay on topic at all, can you. Why are you bringing up non-residential crimes in a discussion about home invasion crimes? Your post didn't even talk about our original topic (What are the odds that a person breaking into your home will assault you?) And why are you still trying to make some case that home invasions are rare? There are literally MILLIONS every year, no matter how much you don't want it to be true:
...crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000...or about 69,000 per 105million....Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base
(emphasis mine)
No, it's not way off base, you are. If you'll look closely, you are comparing violent home invasions to all home invasions (violent or non-violent). Of course those numbers are going to be different.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally),..
How safe are you going to feel when you see a strange person in your home in the middle of the night? We'll see if you just assume that he is an OK guy and means you no harm.
I am safe (statistically)
OK, that's great. When did I ever say otherwise? I never said "OMG, you are soooo going to get home invaded! It's inevitable!"
People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
That's such crap. I guess you don't wear your seatbelt. Otherwise, you must be scared of driving if you try to make yourself safer! Preparing for disaster does not equal being scared of that disaster.
It must be nice to live in a giant mansion with huge rooms that take time to cross. How big do you think a room in my house is? A few steps will cover the distance across most of my rooms. How do you know he didn't get close to me? What if he has a gun? He doesn't need to get too close to take me out.
Why did you escalate the situation by confronting them ?
That's funny, that you think I escalated the situation when the other person actually broke into my house.
Another thing to consider: If I can get the jump on him before he sees me, it might be my only chance to take him out. If I go try to hide, and he later finds me, he now has an equal chance in a fight.
Slashdot Mirror
It must be nice to only be able to see the world in black or white, where complex situations are either one thing, or one other.
How was that a 'complex situation'? How would you like me to simplify it?
Such a flawless logic system wouldn't ever open you up to being manipulated into supporting certain things that might not actually be in your or your peers' interests, either. Oh no.
What in the holy hell are you talking about, and how does it apply to anything we are discussing?
...you hairbrained twit.
Ah, the act of the truly desperate: name-calling.
Hiroshima was targeted to maximize civilian casualties.
but we intentionally aimed at civilians
I'm still waiting with great anticipation for you to prove (or at least show some corroborating evidence) for these two "facts"
if I point a gun at you and tell you to move aside and you don't, then you get what's coming to you.
Your analogy is deeply flawed. I think the analogy you are looking for goes something like this:
Police officer: Take cover, there is a deranged killer behind you with a gun shooting innocent people!
You: What? I don't have to move! Screw you.
[police officer opens fire to take out killer, and accidentally (note that it wasn't intentionally) hits and kills you]
Was the officer guilty of murder because you didn't get out of the way? Of course not, you were an idiot for not heeding his warning.
Either way we targeted civilians...
No, we targeted military assets and war production. Unfortunately, those are generally in the area near civilians, and we didn't have fancy laser guided bombs in WWII. We were literally dropping explosives out of planes thousands of feet in the air and hoping that they hit something. It was the only option we had at the time.
Do you really think that Generals were sitting around figuring out how to kill civilians? Or do you maybe think they were trying to figure out how to destroy Japan's capability to produce more planes and tanks? Which seems more likely to you?
...Nothing there disputes my assertion...
Well, hell, Google's homepage doesn't "dispute your assertion" either. You might as well have linked to that instead of the Wikipedia page. The point was that your link didn't provide any proof to your "assertion" (which you had earlier claimed was a "little known fact")
...but we intentionally aimed at civilians...
Quickly becomes...
...the civilian casualties seemingly were intentional...
Looks like a whole lot of backtracking to me.
...even if you drop leaflets asking people to leave their homes (and go where exactly?)
Well, here's a crazy little guess: OUTSIDE OF THE CITY UNTIL THE BOMBING IS OVER... EXACTLY!
God, I love when people can't admit when they are wrong, even when their own quotes/links prove them wrong.
...but we intentionally aimed at civilians,...
I read through the section you linked to, and I saw nothing to back up your assertion. In fact, I found quite the opposite. Maybe you should read your own link:
Leaflets were dropped over cities before they were bombed, warning the people and urging them to escape the city.
Sad to lose the director of my favorite movie of all time (not just SW movie). I know that most wouldn't put it that high on their list, but it shined far above all the other movies in the best trilogy ever.... and I'm a bit of a SW nut :-)
He said BABIES not unborn fetuses,
So, you don't consider 'unborn fetuses' to be babies? Do they magically change from fetus into baby when they move out of the womb? What is it that changes them? I'd like to know.
Whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, you can't dodge the irrefutable fact that before an abortion, there is a living baby, and after the abortion, there is a dead baby. And abortion is 100% legal in the US, so there is nothing to stop a couple from getting rid of 'unwanted' babies.
Also now you're changing the original poster's message.
No, the original poster's message is that unwanted babies (oops, sorry, 'fetuses' if that makes you feel less queasy) are killed in China, and that could also happen in ANY country where you enact a one child policy.
Yeah, because there is no way to tell the sex of the baby while it is still in the womb, and we don't have test to detect certain disabilities either. Oh, shit, we do have those capabilities? Well, then women can just murder their unwanted babies while still in the womb. Oh, but that isn't 'murder' to you.
But from a societal perspective, it starts to put a bigger wedge between the haves and have-nots. Entertainment/Sports/etc. becomes a industry that can be enjoyed only if you have a certain amount of wealth.
Now ENTERTAINMENT is some sort of inherent right? Dang, the entitlement mentality in this country knows no bounds.
It was the act of a third party that may have priced out a potential consumers.
Um, it they are selling them for 2X the price, then people are still showing up for the concerts. If the scalper price is too high, they will go out of business.
...were forcibly removed from their jobs and educational endeavors and relocated to internment camps,...
Not relevant to the discussion, and not even in the same ballpark as being searched at the airport. Not sure why you brought it up.
..profiling is also quite useless.
Wrong or right, I doubt Israel airport security would agree with you that it is 'useless'.
How about violating constitutional rights? How about violating human rights?
The intent of my post seems to have been lost on a lot of people. I'm not saying that profiling is OK. I'm just questioning why it's OK to violate EVERYBODY'S constitutional/human rights(groping/naked scans), but it is suddenly so wrong if we violate those same rights... IN THE SAME WAY... on a certain group.
the percentage of Arab Muslims who are actually terrorists is quite small.
Well, then the percentage of the general population who are actual terrorist is even smaller. Wouldn't that mean that the random invasive searches are even a bigger waste of time then profiling?
and you're much better off finding much more specific ways to target your search.
What would you use to target the search?
"They came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist..." We are way, way past that little saying. They've already come for EVERYBODY.
I think another point is that the government keeps telling us that these bullshit 'procedures' are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Well, who are the terrorist 99% of the time? Arab Muslims. So the government is admitting (in a roundabout way), that we should fear these terrorist, who are primarily Arab Muslims. But, when it comes time to actually protects us, they say, "Uh, we don't want to offend this group of people, so we are going to treat you all like terrorists."? Well, which is more important; protecting us, or not offending a group of people?
limited government is as 'none' as no government
I'm pretty sure sure that limited implies some government. Some is more than none. Therefore, your statement makes no sense.
...private corporations would fulfill the rendering of critical goods and services..
And I could choose not to do business with them. Whew! That was tough solving that sticky situation.
..giving the power over these critical facets of life into their hands.
Yeah, thank goodness that private corporations don't control the distribution of our food, fuel, shelter, transportation and other critical facets of life! I can't image how that would turn out!!!
Soooo.... non-sheep don't vote? What system do YOU propose for selecting government officials??? Random lottery? Dart board?
Then you should be driving in the left lane(s) if you are going slower than the rest of the traffic. Let the faster traffic pass you on the right. You aren't required to drive at the same speed as everyone else.
Well, what does THEIR speed have to do with YOUR speed???
There are many highways that are 70 mph in California (large stretches of I-5 is the first to come to mind). Of course, speed limit is not a minimum required speed...
Well, you COULD drive 65. Speed limit (especially on a highway where you could drive in the slower lane) does not mean you have to drive at least that speed...
If the feds want you, you're theirs.
Or, they only go after people against whom they have a lot of evidence?
..make them unable to go many places an exo could go.
To bad the exo can't get their either. From TFA:
...the version demonstrated on this day runs off hydraulic power from the Sarcos shop. Smith said chemically powered batteries such as lithium ions are not powerful enough to run the suit for eight to 24 hours at a time.
Well, we always seems to add 'job' to the end of every sexual activity, so I guess we already knew that it was work for them.
Hear an intruder,...
So, what does an intruder sound like? Do they have a little bell or alarm on them? Do they walk around my house yelling "Intruder in your house!"?
...call the police,...
What the hell should I do in the meantime while I wait for the police if the intruder stumbles upon me?
...avoid the intruder.
What if he doesn't avoid me?
Chances are he has no interest in a fight unless provoked. The likelihood of someone invading a home with intent to harm the occupants is vanishingly small.
Well, if you want to put your safety in your belief that you are statistically safe, that's your prerogative. Too bad the actual statistics tell a different story: http://bumpkeywarning.com/HomeInvasionStatistics.htm
According to a United States Department of Justice report: * 38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
...BTW, says fewer criminals go armed into a home than non-residential crimes)
Wow, you can't stay on topic at all, can you. Why are you bringing up non-residential crimes in a discussion about home invasion crimes? Your post didn't even talk about our original topic (What are the odds that a person breaking into your home will assault you?) And why are you still trying to make some case that home invasions are rare? There are literally MILLIONS every year, no matter how much you don't want it to be true:
...crime rate for "violent home invasions" is 23 per 100,000...or about 69,000 per 105million....Your figure of 3,600,000 invasions in a country of 110,000,000 households (USA) is either way off base
(emphasis mine)
No, it's not way off base, you are. If you'll look closely, you are comparing violent home invasions to all home invasions (violent or non-violent). Of course those numbers are going to be different.
My point? I feel safe (anecdotally),..
How safe are you going to feel when you see a strange person in your home in the middle of the night? We'll see if you just assume that he is an OK guy and means you no harm.
I am safe (statistically)
OK, that's great. When did I ever say otherwise? I never said "OMG, you are soooo going to get home invaded! It's inevitable!"
People who arm themselves because of perceived crime stats do not feel safe.
That's such crap. I guess you don't wear your seatbelt. Otherwise, you must be scared of driving if you try to make yourself safer! Preparing for disaster does not equal being scared of that disaster.
Why did you escalate the situation by confronting them ?
That's funny, that you think I escalated the situation when the other person actually broke into my house.
Another thing to consider: If I can get the jump on him before he sees me, it might be my only chance to take him out. If I go try to hide, and he later finds me, he now has an equal chance in a fight.
Well, you could try waiting rather than just shooting first and asking questions later.
Me: Well, I'll just wait to see if he...
Intruder: [stab]
Me: I guess... [gurgle] I waited too long... [thud]
Great idea.