There is a serious lack of Bennett Haselton hatred going on right now. Have we all forgotten so soon?
No, but he hasn't said anything too blisteringly stupid in this one, and fair's fair - he gets the benefit of the doubt this time around. The uppity, self-aggrandizing tone of his posts are just par for the course at this point.
Where I come from, you see a lot of posters and bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "gun control is using both hands/knowing your target." Something tells me our idea of 'sensible' is going to be a bit different than, say, someone living in NYC.
Side note: I see from your link that they're basing this claim on a poll, but do not actually have a link anywhere on the page for readers to review the poll for themselves (at least, not that I found).
This being Slashdot, with a crowd more perceptive than most, I don't think I need to explain the problem with bias in opinion polls. For example, see this article in which the NRA claims that the one in your article is bunk, and did their own survey achieving a completely different result.
>Granted, I haven't actually tried that one myself, but I can tell you that smoking dried banana peels can get you pretty fucked up.
No you can't. That hoax dates back to my father's teenage years, and I'm pretty old myself.
Empirical evidence that debunks it as a 'hoax?' I suppose I could believe what I felt being the placebo effect (I was a stupid teenager, after all), but lack of any evidence supporting your "it's a hoax" theory doesn't incline me to believe you.
Why are semi-automatic weapons so often referred to as automatic? It seems to be a common misnomer in the US but I'm curious why.
Sensationalism; the same reason putting a synthetic stock with a Weaver rail on it magically turns an ordinary deer rifle into a "military grade assault weapon."
Wouldn't milling a gun on CNC machine from a solid block of metal make much more sense?
From a reliability standpoint I'd say yes; however, if your purpose was proving that 3D laser sintering is a high enough quality process that you can make a working firearm, going CNC kind of defeats the purpose.
The messages should have the largest font of the package with a non-obscuring background, the font should be no smaller than the largest writing on the package including logos.
Agreed - no point in making them label the packaging if they're going to do it in a way that prevents people from actually being able to read and understand the information therein.
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
I'm so tired of hearing Americans saying things like this. The terms "free" and "freedom" do not mean "do whatever the fuck I want and hang everyone else", which is what Fox News in particular seem to think they mean. It's quite obvious that the constitution uses the term "freedom" with respect to things such as freedom to form a democratically elected government, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the free right to peaceably assemble, etc. i.e. freedom to perform important shit that will help avoid oppression and tyranny. These are noble and beautiful things that you, as a nation, should be proud of. Why do Americans insist on debasing their constitution by placing freedom to eat trans-fats/large sodas/etc, up there with with all the other stuff that actually matters?
I'm pretty tired myself of having non-Americans, whose knowledge of American politics and history amount to precisely fuck-all, trying to dictate to myself and my countrymen what our system of law and governance is meant to be.
Anyway, the idea is that we, Americans, are to have every freedom in the world, up to the point where exercising our freedom would prohibit another person from doing the same, or cause them harm. That's a big part of why the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added.
I think the AC is referring to the fact that he's against mandating (banning) one thing, but he's ok with mandating another thing. If he's OK forcing the manufacturers doing one thing, why not the other, if he's all about liberty?
"Manufacturers" do not have rights per the US Constitution; People do.
No shit, Sherlock. Ever tried smoking some nutmeg? Not that I would recommend it, but it's perfectly legal to possess and, when smoked, is purported to have psychotropic qualities. Granted, I haven't actually tried that one myself, but I can tell you that smoking dried banana peels can get you pretty fucked up.
Anyway, considering that I have nutmeg in my spice rack, my quoted statement above is factually sound.
It is as much a drug as the nicotine in tobacco, psilocybin in certain mushrooms, or any other drug for that matter.
Or the caffeine in coffee, the theobromine in chocolate, or any of a thousand other substances people dose themselves with all day, every day, with no legal repercussions. Hell, even oxygen has been noted to have psychoactive properties under the right use conditions.
No I know but I just had to laugh at "most of us would voluntarily elect to not fill our bodies with man-made poisons" when that's practically the national sport here in the UK.
That doesn't explains why we colonists ('Murican and Australian) are so much better at it than you fog-breathing limeys.
Yea, that's right. I went there, took pictures, had a coffee mug made from the pictures, and added the caption, "What now, bitches?"
Ummmm... people smoke, people drink. In fact the majority of people drink alcohol which is one hell of a man made poison
Yea, in fact I smoke.
But, you see, the tobacco products I purchase have the health risks clearly labeled on the packaging. As a grown-ass man, it's my right to choose to smoke those products regardless of the health risk, just like it's my right to go skydiving even though there's a chance I might go *splat*.
People without our means may not be able to do so. If we instead ban these things all products even the cheapest will be free from them.
So... if we label products appropriately... what? Poor people will continue to make poor food purchase decision because they can't afford to make better ones?
Bullshit, man - veggies are fucking cheap. For the price of a bag o' Doritos you can get several pounds of carrots. Probably even a chicken breast or two (YMMV based on local cost-of-living, of course).
You libertarian types are hilarious. What do you think alcoholic drinks are if not man-made poisons and yet most of us do voluntarily elect to fill our bodies with it.
Because it gets you drunk*. Duh. If the only effect imbibing booze had on a human being was giving him a fat gut and foul-smelling BO, I guarantee you it would not be nearly as popular a product.
You have way more faith in humans than I do.
I think you're over-estimating there - I just don't care what other people do to their bodies, because it's none of my damn business; I also firmly believe in the inverse, which is why I am usually against these kinds of bans.
* Or maybe because it gets chicks drunk. That seems to be a pretty popular reason for keeping the substance around.
I overheard a co-worker talking about her diet the other day; she was actually trying to argue against eating vegetables because they contain carbs! True story.
I felt compelled to point out to her what one of the coaches from Biggest Loser (the skinny red-headed guy) once said in an interview: "Nobody ever got fat from eating vegetables."
What controversy? There is none. There is no scientifically sound reason to ban or specially label GMO foods - period. Pretending there's a controversy is a popular tack of the anti-science lot, I guess.
Maybe not a "scientifically sound" reason, but there are some "freedom-sound" reasons to label GMO foods - some people don't want to put them in their bodies, and businesses that sell products to the public have no right to privacy regarding said publicly-sold goods.
While I agree with liberty first and foremost, transfats are an artificial creation used to save money regardless of health risks. No consumer, if properly educated, would ever choose to eat transfats because they "taste better", or something like this. They don't. There's no advantage, to the consumer to eat them.
Precisely why I favor accurate labeling over an outright ban - if food products had proper labeling, consumers would know what's in the package, and most of us would voluntarily elect to not fill our bodies with man-made poisons.
Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
Mandate that any product containing trans fat be labeled as such, and with appropriate health warnings (like they do on tobacco products), but outright bans of things we can only use to harm ourselves is anathema to liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a serious lack of Bennett Haselton hatred going on right now. Have we all forgotten so soon?
No, but he hasn't said anything too blisteringly stupid in this one, and fair's fair - he gets the benefit of the doubt this time around. The uppity, self-aggrandizing tone of his posts are just par for the course at this point.
Define "sensible."
Where I come from, you see a lot of posters and bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "gun control is using both hands/knowing your target." Something tells me our idea of 'sensible' is going to be a bit different than, say, someone living in NYC.
Side note: I see from your link that they're basing this claim on a poll, but do not actually have a link anywhere on the page for readers to review the poll for themselves (at least, not that I found).
This being Slashdot, with a crowd more perceptive than most, I don't think I need to explain the problem with bias in opinion polls. For example, see this article in which the NRA claims that the one in your article is bunk, and did their own survey achieving a completely different result.
I guess you could consider deliriants like nutmeg to be drugs, but I think most people would consider them to be poisons.
Drugs can be poisons; the terms are not diametrically opposed.
Alcohol, for example.
>Granted, I haven't actually tried that one myself, but I can tell you that smoking dried banana peels can get you pretty fucked up.
No you can't. That hoax dates back to my father's teenage years, and I'm pretty old myself.
Empirical evidence that debunks it as a 'hoax?' I suppose I could believe what I felt being the placebo effect (I was a stupid teenager, after all), but lack of any evidence supporting your "it's a hoax" theory doesn't incline me to believe you.
Why are semi-automatic weapons so often referred to as automatic? It seems to be a common misnomer in the US but I'm curious why.
Sensationalism; the same reason putting a synthetic stock with a Weaver rail on it magically turns an ordinary deer rifle into a "military grade assault weapon."
You know, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
FWIW, the NRA is mainly funded by member dues and donations, not gun manufacturers.
Wouldn't milling a gun on CNC machine from a solid block of metal make much more sense?
From a reliability standpoint I'd say yes; however, if your purpose was proving that 3D laser sintering is a high enough quality process that you can make a working firearm, going CNC kind of defeats the purpose.
The messages should have the largest font of the package with a non-obscuring background, the font should be no smaller than the largest writing on the package including logos.
Agreed - no point in making them label the packaging if they're going to do it in a way that prevents people from actually being able to read and understand the information therein.
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
I'm so tired of hearing Americans saying things like this. The terms "free" and "freedom" do not mean "do whatever the fuck I want and hang everyone else", which is what Fox News in particular seem to think they mean. It's quite obvious that the constitution uses the term "freedom" with respect to things such as freedom to form a democratically elected government, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the free right to peaceably assemble, etc. i.e. freedom to perform important shit that will help avoid oppression and tyranny. These are noble and beautiful things that you, as a nation, should be proud of. Why do Americans insist on debasing their constitution by placing freedom to eat trans-fats/large sodas/etc, up there with with all the other stuff that actually matters?
I'm pretty tired myself of having non-Americans, whose knowledge of American politics and history amount to precisely fuck-all, trying to dictate to myself and my countrymen what our system of law and governance is meant to be.
Anyway, the idea is that we, Americans, are to have every freedom in the world, up to the point where exercising our freedom would prohibit another person from doing the same, or cause them harm. That's a big part of why the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added.
Sounds like a fair compromise.
I guess this means neither of us will ever be elected to Congress, doesn't it?
I think the AC is referring to the fact that he's against mandating (banning) one thing, but he's ok with mandating another thing. If he's OK forcing the manufacturers doing one thing, why not the other, if he's all about liberty?
"Manufacturers" do not have rights per the US Constitution; People do.
OK, so are we done with the ad absurdums now?
I admire people who stand firm in their right as a human being to proudly display their own stupidity.
I admire people who aren't uppity douche-bags about the life choices other people make.
Marijuana, which is no more a drug than anything in my spice rack, yes
The active ingredient in marijuana is THC.
No shit, Sherlock. Ever tried smoking some nutmeg? Not that I would recommend it, but it's perfectly legal to possess and, when smoked, is purported to have psychotropic qualities. Granted, I haven't actually tried that one myself, but I can tell you that smoking dried banana peels can get you pretty fucked up.
Anyway, considering that I have nutmeg in my spice rack, my quoted statement above is factually sound.
It is as much a drug as the nicotine in tobacco, psilocybin in certain mushrooms, or any other drug for that matter.
Or the caffeine in coffee, the theobromine in chocolate, or any of a thousand other substances people dose themselves with all day, every day, with no legal repercussions. Hell, even oxygen has been noted to have psychoactive properties under the right use conditions.
Sorry, did you have a point?
No I know but I just had to laugh at "most of us would voluntarily elect to not fill our bodies with man-made poisons" when that's practically the national sport here in the UK.
That doesn't explains why we colonists ('Murican and Australian) are so much better at it than you fog-breathing limeys.
Yea, that's right. I went there, took pictures, had a coffee mug made from the pictures, and added the caption, "What now, bitches?"
Ummmm... people smoke, people drink. In fact the majority of people drink alcohol which is one hell of a man made poison
Yea, in fact I smoke.
But, you see, the tobacco products I purchase have the health risks clearly labeled on the packaging. As a grown-ass man, it's my right to choose to smoke those products regardless of the health risk, just like it's my right to go skydiving even though there's a chance I might go *splat*.
You mean those of us with options.
Huh? What are you trying to say here?
People without our means may not be able to do so. If we instead ban these things all products even the cheapest will be free from them.
So... if we label products appropriately... what? Poor people will continue to make poor food purchase decision because they can't afford to make better ones?
Bullshit, man - veggies are fucking cheap. For the price of a bag o' Doritos you can get several pounds of carrots. Probably even a chicken breast or two (YMMV based on local cost-of-living, of course).
You libertarian types are hilarious. What do you think alcoholic drinks are if not man-made poisons and yet most of us do voluntarily elect to fill our bodies with it.
Because it gets you drunk*. Duh. If the only effect imbibing booze had on a human being was giving him a fat gut and foul-smelling BO, I guarantee you it would not be nearly as popular a product.
You have way more faith in humans than I do.
I think you're over-estimating there - I just don't care what other people do to their bodies, because it's none of my damn business; I also firmly believe in the inverse, which is why I am usually against these kinds of bans.
* Or maybe because it gets chicks drunk. That seems to be a pretty popular reason for keeping the substance around.
I overheard a co-worker talking about her diet the other day; she was actually trying to argue against eating vegetables because they contain carbs! True story.
I felt compelled to point out to her what one of the coaches from Biggest Loser (the skinny red-headed guy) once said in an interview: "Nobody ever got fat from eating vegetables."
Your carb rant just made me think of it.
What controversy? There is none. There is no scientifically sound reason to ban or specially label GMO foods - period. Pretending there's a controversy is a popular tack of the anti-science lot, I guess.
Maybe not a "scientifically sound" reason, but there are some "freedom-sound" reasons to label GMO foods - some people don't want to put them in their bodies, and businesses that sell products to the public have no right to privacy regarding said publicly-sold goods.
-1 Redundant (we know it's a Demolition Man reference, Captain Obvious)
Ohhhh boy, and here comes ReichStagFred88 to goose-step all over internet jokes.
OK, this whole thread might be a stupid argument, but damn if that's not one funny bastardization of someone's handle!
So then I would take it that you are in favor of making marijuana (and other drugs) legal?
Marijuana, which is no more a drug than anything in my spice rack, yes.
Actual drugs, aka meth, coke, pharmaceuticals... yes, but in a highly regulated environment.
While I agree with liberty first and foremost, transfats are an artificial creation used to save money regardless of health risks. No consumer, if properly educated, would ever choose to eat transfats because they "taste better", or something like this. They don't. There's no advantage, to the consumer to eat them.
Precisely why I favor accurate labeling over an outright ban - if food products had proper labeling, consumers would know what's in the package, and most of us would voluntarily elect to not fill our bodies with man-made poisons.
Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
Mandate that any product containing trans fat be labeled as such, and with appropriate health warnings (like they do on tobacco products), but outright bans of things we can only use to harm ourselves is anathema to liberty.
Are you implying that it was arson?