Incorrect. No one should need that ability in a completely just world. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world and some are choosing to exercise that ability even when they don't need to. Then others do, actually, need to exercise it for self-protection.
As the police officer who led my concealed carry class said, the criminals are carrying guns. When he first went undercover ~20 years ago, he didn't carry because he didn't want to be recognized as a police officer because he was carrying. Concealed carry was not allowed with or without a permit in our state back then. He took him less than a week to realize that not carrying would have marked him as a law-abiding citizen so he started carrying to fit in with the criminals he was interacting with.
You don't want to kill someone that breaks into your house when you are there? Fine. Don't. That is your right. As for me and mine... If htey break in while we are home, they are not going to be satisfied with just walking out with your stuff. Statistics show that home invasions almost always end up with somebody dead or seriously injured. The only question is does the victim get to be a victim twice or once?
Obvious left-wing nutjob that doesn't understand economics ranting about others not believing in it.
You mention supply and demand. Yes, market theory says that if the demand for murder goes up, then the cost will increase and then the number of people willing to do it for higher will increase (that is the supply) then the cost will come back down and equilibrium will be reached. If the demand then goes back down, then so will the price and then fewer people will decide it is worth doing.
Your example makes the claim that more houses will be built just because Stanley makes more hammers and more people buy them.
To address your other stupid comment... Could you enlighten us as to how murder by something other than a gun is acceptable? Could you also name one single person who claims that using a gun to commit murder is acceptable other than those who have committed murder with them?
If you are being harassed then you should call the police. If by harassed you mean that the very idea that your neighbor might have a gun at home, then grow up and shut up. You act as if you have a fundamental right to spout nonsense that I find highly annoying. Don't you realize that your right to spout nonsense does not supersede my right to remain unannoyed?
Most gun owners like guns because they use them to hunt or find practicing their shooting skills to be highly enjoyable. Have you ever considered the amount of muscle control and timing and hand/eye coordination it takes to shoot extremely accurately? Of course not because them guns is evil shit.
Oh yeah, let's ban them for the sake of the children. Lets ban games and the internet for the same reason.
I take responsibility for my guns every day. What I am not responsible for is what some asshole chooses to do with his, hers or the ones they stole. Just like you are not responsible for every crime that is committed with a computer just because you own or use one.
Did you understand that? People are responsible for their own actions. All computer owners are not collectively responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All gun owners are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All car owners are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All alcohol consumers are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few.
Alcohol alone is responsible for more deaths than guns so why aren't you demanding that every drinker take responsibility, those assholes.
I guess you haven't actually met a "gun nut" in real life then, have you. I know quite a few gun owners and very few of them are hoping for more government interference or what you would call a police state. One or two of them lean that way but they lean left on many issues and I can't figure out how they reconcile gun ownership in the first place.
They will be exactly as safe as they choose to be. Or are you one of those nutjobs that believe that a chunk of metal gains magical powers over the one possessing it and causes said possessor to do random acts of idiocy?
Come now. Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.Uber whatever is obviously way smarter than Marrissa Mayer and Uber whatever could obviously run Yahoo much better but he just isn't feeling it right now. Maybe in a few more years he'll be feeling it and then he'll move out of mommies basement and change the world.
Withholding from those who do the work?!?!? I guess he hired the dumbest people on earth if they don't realize he was supposed to be paying them. Maybe his slaves should realize that he owes them money, secure representation and sue him for back wages.
Uhhhh... maybe Vue offered Cisco lower costs or more profit than Prometric. Stating it must be the result of illegal collusion is like saying that Culvers carries only Pepsi soda is a sign of illegal collusion.
Exactly how would the exact problem causing this particular outage be prevented by some vaporous open source software developed by the lowest paid programmers on earth?
Of course your sig says everything we need to know. If only the government controlled everything then we'd all be free. Except we wouldn't because the government would know every thing about us.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how much less privacy you would have from the government if the government controlled Google, Facebook, Amazon, your local porn shop, your corner drug dealer, etc.?
He is at least as impartial as any so-called "climate expert." Yes, they do have a profit motive. It is always that they need more funding to develop more reliable models and do more research and attend more conferences and publish more Chicken Little predictions.
or do proper crop rotation with crops that help replenish.
And what exactly is wrong with using fertilizer? Even the iron age farmers knew about spreading fertilizer although they mostly referred to it as manure or just shit. But continue down the luddite path if it makes you feel better about yourselves.
I think you are failing to understand the point of this thread. The general gist of it is that everybody will continue to perform their current job (or lack thereof) with the same efficiency/productivity/output but the wealth will get redistributed "fairly." In other words, people still believe the fantasy that all of the good things will be produced when the payout for producing is no better than the payout for not producing.
Nowhere in the world is anyone obligated by morality to employ another person until such a time as one decides to employ someone and forms an agreement with the employed person.
Unfortunately, "more transparency" was used incorrectly as what we really would like to achieve is a more transparent government and a less transparent society.
But your response does highlight the fact that you really do believe that you will be safest when you have no more rights. Such a thought is abhorent to many a good patriot here in the states.
Because all those others are mostly internal with some outside support (think attempt to start civil war) whereas the Muslim ones are generally attacks from outside.
We can easily fool ourselves into believing that a bunch of communist ideologues born and raised in a country that get some funding (directly or indirectly) from the KGB were just "freedom fighters" trying to promote a better way of life in Western Europe (Red Army Faction, Action Directe, Badder-Meinhof, etc) or the US (Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc.). Or even that they actually had some valid nationalistic points like the IRA and the Basques.
We generally have a more difficult time fooling ourselves about the Muslims coming over to kill us as simply trying to get us to leave them alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. No one should need that ability in a completely just world. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world and some are choosing to exercise that ability even when they don't need to. Then others do, actually, need to exercise it for self-protection.
Yeah, I'd rather be attacked by a knife or tire-iron wielder as well. Then he'd be the idiot bringing the knife to the gunfight.
As the police officer who led my concealed carry class said, the criminals are carrying guns. When he first went undercover ~20 years ago, he didn't carry because he didn't want to be recognized as a police officer because he was carrying. Concealed carry was not allowed with or without a permit in our state back then. He took him less than a week to realize that not carrying would have marked him as a law-abiding citizen so he started carrying to fit in with the criminals he was interacting with.
You don't want to kill someone that breaks into your house when you are there? Fine. Don't. That is your right. As for me and mine... If htey break in while we are home, they are not going to be satisfied with just walking out with your stuff. Statistics show that home invasions almost always end up with somebody dead or seriously injured. The only question is does the victim get to be a victim twice or once?
Obvious left-wing nutjob that doesn't understand economics ranting about others not believing in it.
You mention supply and demand. Yes, market theory says that if the demand for murder goes up, then the cost will increase and then the number of people willing to do it for higher will increase (that is the supply) then the cost will come back down and equilibrium will be reached. If the demand then goes back down, then so will the price and then fewer people will decide it is worth doing.
Your example makes the claim that more houses will be built just because Stanley makes more hammers and more people buy them.
To address your other stupid comment... Could you enlighten us as to how murder by something other than a gun is acceptable? Could you also name one single person who claims that using a gun to commit murder is acceptable other than those who have committed murder with them?
If you are being harassed then you should call the police. If by harassed you mean that the very idea that your neighbor might have a gun at home, then grow up and shut up. You act as if you have a fundamental right to spout nonsense that I find highly annoying. Don't you realize that your right to spout nonsense does not supersede my right to remain unannoyed?
Most gun owners like guns because they use them to hunt or find practicing their shooting skills to be highly enjoyable. Have you ever considered the amount of muscle control and timing and hand/eye coordination it takes to shoot extremely accurately? Of course not because them guns is evil shit.
Oh yeah, let's ban them for the sake of the children. Lets ban games and the internet for the same reason.
I take responsibility for my guns every day. What I am not responsible for is what some asshole chooses to do with his, hers or the ones they stole. Just like you are not responsible for every crime that is committed with a computer just because you own or use one.
Did you understand that? People are responsible for their own actions. All computer owners are not collectively responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All gun owners are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All car owners are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few. All alcohol consumers are not responsible for the actions of a misguided few.
Alcohol alone is responsible for more deaths than guns so why aren't you demanding that every drinker take responsibility, those assholes.
I guess you haven't actually met a "gun nut" in real life then, have you. I know quite a few gun owners and very few of them are hoping for more government interference or what you would call a police state. One or two of them lean that way but they lean left on many issues and I can't figure out how they reconcile gun ownership in the first place.
They will be exactly as safe as they choose to be. Or are you one of those nutjobs that believe that a chunk of metal gains magical powers over the one possessing it and causes said possessor to do random acts of idiocy?
Come now. Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.Uber whatever is obviously way smarter than Marrissa Mayer and Uber whatever could obviously run Yahoo much better but he just isn't feeling it right now. Maybe in a few more years he'll be feeling it and then he'll move out of mommies basement and change the world.
Withholding from those who do the work?!?!? I guess he hired the dumbest people on earth if they don't realize he was supposed to be paying them. Maybe his slaves should realize that he owes them money, secure representation and sue him for back wages.
Uhhhh... maybe Vue offered Cisco lower costs or more profit than Prometric. Stating it must be the result of illegal collusion is like saying that Culvers carries only Pepsi soda is a sign of illegal collusion.
Exactly how would the exact problem causing this particular outage be prevented by some vaporous open source software developed by the lowest paid programmers on earth?
Of course your sig says everything we need to know. If only the government controlled everything then we'd all be free. Except we wouldn't because the government would know every thing about us.
Have you ever stopped to wonder how much less privacy you would have from the government if the government controlled Google, Facebook, Amazon, your local porn shop, your corner drug dealer, etc.?
He is at least as impartial as any so-called "climate expert." Yes, they do have a profit motive. It is always that they need more funding to develop more reliable models and do more research and attend more conferences and publish more Chicken Little predictions.
I think the US imports fruits and veggies from South America and the West Indies far more than from Europe.
or do proper crop rotation with crops that help replenish.
And what exactly is wrong with using fertilizer? Even the iron age farmers knew about spreading fertilizer although they mostly referred to it as manure or just shit. But continue down the luddite path if it makes you feel better about yourselves.
True, We live to take care of ourselves and our loved ones.
We should also strive to be able to assist in taking care of others but we should not be forced to do so.
Go back to school and get a Masters in Noodle Studies. I've heard those are highly employable.
The price of most things including the computer you used to post that idiotic question.
I think you are failing to understand the point of this thread. The general gist of it is that everybody will continue to perform their current job (or lack thereof) with the same efficiency/productivity/output but the wealth will get redistributed "fairly." In other words, people still believe the fantasy that all of the good things will be produced when the payout for producing is no better than the payout for not producing.
Nowhere in the world is anyone obligated by morality to employ another person until such a time as one decides to employ someone and forms an agreement with the employed person.
Unfortunately, "more transparency" was used incorrectly as what we really would like to achieve is a more transparent government and a less transparent society.
But your response does highlight the fact that you really do believe that you will be safest when you have no more rights. Such a thought is abhorent to many a good patriot here in the states.
And communism is two lazies and a hardworker deciding who will always pay for dinner.
Unless they want to own one or more of those evil gun thingamobobs. I'm sure you have some others as well.
Because all those others are mostly internal with some outside support (think attempt to start civil war) whereas the Muslim ones are generally attacks from outside.
We can easily fool ourselves into believing that a bunch of communist ideologues born and raised in a country that get some funding (directly or indirectly) from the KGB were just "freedom fighters" trying to promote a better way of life in Western Europe (Red Army Faction, Action Directe, Badder-Meinhof, etc) or the US (Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc.). Or even that they actually had some valid nationalistic points like the IRA and the Basques.
We generally have a more difficult time fooling ourselves about the Muslims coming over to kill us as simply trying to get us to leave them alone.
A "progressive" tax structure is also discriminatory because it treats people differently based on their specific circumstances as well.