How is this +5? So all I have to say is "MARIJUANA IS PERFECTLY FINE" and get modded up?
That's not what I said. I discussed how there is much ignorance about the subject of marijuana's harmfulness.
I'm sure your personal anecdotes are all well and interesting, but they don't carry one bit of scientific scrutiny or methodology... Next time consult some scientific studies
Ironically, you did not quote anything in your own arguments.
As far as your concern over marijuana's harmfulness, I don't think it is perfectly safe. It is relatively safe compared to alcohol, which is legal. And everything is dangerous... coffee, water, pens and pencils, sugar, fat, cars, horses, everything.
Someone once said that there are only about 30 or so stories that can ever be written. Rescue the princess, escape from danger, etc. All stories are one or many of these themes wrapped up and told differently. Stories aren't necessarily boring, but the truth is, as you get older you've seen and heard them all.
Online action tends to be fresh because each time you play, you are usually creating a new experience that you've never had before in the exact way. Of course, there are small nuances that change from time to time with single player, and multiplayer does repeat similar experiences, but the point is still valid.
It may be obvious that marijuana is relatively safe to anyone who actually knows about marijuana and alcohol, or cares to research it, but it isn't to those who don't. People who don't know about it are bombarded with media from the war on drugs and conservatives on how bad marijuana is. They really think smoking pot actually does cause harm to those around them, and it should be easy to understand why, with all of the top-down deception happening in the U.S. and other countries.
That is true - but such people are making the wrong arguments. I presume you know that being gay isn't a choice - I think most people that say that don't even believe it themselves. However, the fact of the matter is that there are extra benefits extended to opposite sex couples that aren't extended to same sex couples. The government should have no say in denying that. And, if we go down that path, it would be smart to not even include marriage in such laws - just give tax breaks to those with children, regardless of their marriage status, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, etc.
True. The problem stems from the fact that, in most contracts, people form a contract to own a certain percentage of whatever it is. Say, 30%/30%/40% voting rights in a corporation. But in a marriage, it's a contract where two people own 100% of the assets jointly, which is a bitch to break (i.e. how to split up children).
There was marriage before there was Christianity and Islam. In Ancient Rome, marriage was not religious*. You are only saying that the concept of marriage is religious because what you know of marriage is religious. You only know of the Western Christian concept - yes, in Christianity and Islam, marriage is a religious concept. But not everywhere.
On these grounds I refuse to recognize every legal union as "marriage," especially those exclusively secular.
The important thing here is not whether you, or Southern Baptists, "recognize" legal unions. The important thing is that you, Southern Baptists, et al, don't tell other free people what they can and cannot do as long as such actions don't hurt anyone.
* There were actually more than one type of legally recognized marriage, and some of them did include religious rites. But the concept of marriage was not in and of itself religious in Ancient Rome - it was a very legalese type of contract.
You're a douchebag idiot if you don't know the difference. America doesn't mean the two continents in the western hemisphere, it means a resident of the country called the United States of America. You're a dumbass.
But regardless of the results which may say there is a potential high sea level rise, it is stupid for a few politicians to prevent the planning commission from using new data.
Less guns only removes the instrument, not the intent to kill another person. While you may argue that the removal of such an effective instrument might lead to less deaths, that can just as well be said about poisons, toxic chemicals, steak knifes, pictures-of-you-fucking-your-mistress-in-your-wifes-hands, etc.
I understand what you are saying. I simply disagree that removing the tool won't lead to less deaths. People commit crimes of passion all the time. They may have the intent to kill, but the amount deaths during a crime of passion are inevitably less without the instruments to kill them. If everyone had machine guns there would be a lot more deaths than if everyone had regular guns. If everyone had guns there's be a lot more deaths if everyone had knives.
Note that I'm not countering your discussion of guns in civilians vs. government power, just the point that you say that there is an equal amount of deaths in a society with guns vs. knives.
How was the first murder only 6000 years ago? There was no murders for a hundred thousand years, but finally it happened 6000 years ago by a jew? Anti-semite!!!
When in history, has there even been ONE gun that has killed anybody or even injured them, where no human pulled the trigger caused the trigger to be pulled?
Just wait. The year 2018 is coming sooner than you think...
Switzerland is often brought up by American gun rights advocates. Switzerland is but one shining example in a sea of a hundred counterexamples. Yes, we wish we could be Switzerland, but we're not. We're America and we have 10K gun homicides a year, while they have like 6 a year.
The other countries with guns have plenty of violence too. Switzerland is just, well, better than the rest of us.
Guerrilla warfare is easily dealt with but bloody: when a group of people start to engage in such tactics you simply eliminate those people or at least a substantial portion of them. The Roman Empire didn't have a problem doing that, neither did Adolph Hitler nor Joseph Stalin, or for that matter Saddam Hussein and Mao Zedong. American politicians tend to have problems doing that kind of thing though, as it tends to lose elections or at least is unpopular in modern American culture.
The way you wrote could be construed as if it was a bad thing that Americans have problems doing that. I'm very proud that they do, or at least enough of us think so to make it unpopular. It is absolutely correct that such a war is dealt with by destroying almost all of the people - but a democratic society on the other half of the world should have no need of doing that unless in (actual) danger themselves.
Then again the better thing to do is not invade a country which doesn't want you there in the first place.
I think you make a very well formed and educated point. I appreciate that you didn't attack the person who made the argument.
I offer you a counterargument: if all you have is a hammer then all of your problems seem like nails. If you have a gun, your problems can be solved by using it. Yes, we kill each other, but we are emotional beings who will "feel" like killing someone at one point and not the next. I don't think it's appropriate to say that it's only people and not the tools. If it's ok to have guns, why not machine guns? Why not tanks? Why not combat helicopters? Why not weapons of mass destruction?
I've heard that if every car had a spike on the steering wheel pointing at the driver, everyone would drive extremely carefully and there would be less automobile deaths. I just don't buy that: there would be lots of people who died by being impaled on the spike by accidents anyways. So we don't put spikes on the steering wheels as a preventative measure because it may prevent more deaths than it would kill people.
In the same manner, I don't think it's appropriate to give everyone a gun. It's a tool to kill people, and it's a tool which makes it really easy to do so. Sure, I can still be killed by another person without a gun, but if they have one it makes it MUCH easier to do so. One split second to pull the trigger. If you think it doesn't matter about the tool (knife vs. gun), then why does it not matter if they have an even better tool (gun vs. machine gun)? If everyone had a machine gun, would there be less killings because we all knew everyone had a machine gun, just like the spike on a steering wheel would make us not drive dangerously? I adamantly disagree. That's not the way people work: people commit crimes of passion all the time, regretting it later, but it still happens.
So, yes, guns are but tools and people still kill people without them, but I don't think it's appropriate to allow tools which allow death to be caused so easily to be given my neighbors. They drink, they get angry, and I'd rather them have a difficult time trying to kill me if they get a hunkering to try as such.
You're either not using proper English or proper logic. Just because there exists old data does not mean that it is logical not to use new data. I am aware that there is old data and that the law allows it to be used; what I am saying is that the law prevents the use of new data.
You have a point. But it doesn't relate to this conversation.
This conversation has to do with the fact that the government is changing the way reality is measured. They are going to make it against the law to have certain flood zones be declared as flood zones, even though they are. What it affects is insurance rates, not what citizens can and cannot do.
Although I guess you could make a point that the government is trying to think for its citizens by declaring science invalid and to think everything will happen only based on previous data and not new data.
And of course, we all know that no credible scientists disagrees with global warming. If a scientist disagrees with the dangers posed by AGW, he obviously loses all credibility.
The problem is that 95% of climate scientists affirm the dangers posed by AGW, and 5% disagree. Conservatives act like it's 50%-50%. If 95% of a group educated on a subject are in agreement, why do more than 50% of American conservatives not believe them?
Think of it this way: if 5% of educated physicists disagree on some obscure nuance of dark matter while 95% are in agreement, why and how the fuck would over 50% of conservatives disagree with almost all of the educated physicists? Those people are embracing the Dark Ages lack of scientific learning and reason.
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been
According to the article, you are wrong:
Republican legislators went further. They circulated a bill that authorizes only the coastal commission to calculate how fast the sea is rising. It said the calculations must be based only on historic trends – leaving out the accelerated rise that climate scientists widely expect this century if warming increases and glaciers melt.
It specifically states two really awful things: 1, that the law prevents from looking forward by declaring that calculations cannot use new and complementing data, only old data, and 2. only the coastal commission can decide as such, which is a biased organization with an incentive to report low sea level rise.
I know you're just trolling but I have to reply anyway. The law doesn't prevent looking forward, it only prohibits speculation based on concepts proven to be flawed and exaggerated.
According to the article, you are wrong:
Republican legislators went further. They circulated a bill that authorizes only the coastal commission to calculate how fast the sea is rising. It said the calculations must be based only on historic trends – leaving out the accelerated rise that climate scientists widely expect this century if warming increases and glaciers melt.
It specifically says two really awful things: 1, that the law prevents from looking forward by calculations cannot use new and complementing data, only old data, and 2. only the coastal commission can decide as such, which is a biased organization with an incentive to report low sea level rise.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get confused, I am not being racist
Yes you are.
Technically, just talking about races is not racist. Prejudice + power = racism.
How is this +5? So all I have to say is "MARIJUANA IS PERFECTLY FINE" and get modded up?
That's not what I said. I discussed how there is much ignorance about the subject of marijuana's harmfulness.
I'm sure your personal anecdotes are all well and interesting, but they don't carry one bit of scientific scrutiny or methodology... Next time consult some scientific studies
Ironically, you did not quote anything in your own arguments.
As far as your concern over marijuana's harmfulness, I don't think it is perfectly safe. It is relatively safe compared to alcohol, which is legal. And everything is dangerous... coffee, water, pens and pencils, sugar, fat, cars, horses, everything.
Haha, yeah I can see that. But to be fair, it was a response to "Stories are boring."
Agreed somewhat.
Someone once said that there are only about 30 or so stories that can ever be written. Rescue the princess, escape from danger, etc. All stories are one or many of these themes wrapped up and told differently. Stories aren't necessarily boring, but the truth is, as you get older you've seen and heard them all.
Online action tends to be fresh because each time you play, you are usually creating a new experience that you've never had before in the exact way. Of course, there are small nuances that change from time to time with single player, and multiplayer does repeat similar experiences, but the point is still valid.
It may be obvious that marijuana is relatively safe to anyone who actually knows about marijuana and alcohol, or cares to research it, but it isn't to those who don't. People who don't know about it are bombarded with media from the war on drugs and conservatives on how bad marijuana is. They really think smoking pot actually does cause harm to those around them, and it should be easy to understand why, with all of the top-down deception happening in the U.S. and other countries.
As a gay man, I applaud you. You're absolutely right. Fuck all this recognition bullshit, just make all of it not matter.
LOL! A good aside to all the other crap in this thread :)
That is true - but such people are making the wrong arguments. I presume you know that being gay isn't a choice - I think most people that say that don't even believe it themselves. However, the fact of the matter is that there are extra benefits extended to opposite sex couples that aren't extended to same sex couples. The government should have no say in denying that. And, if we go down that path, it would be smart to not even include marriage in such laws - just give tax breaks to those with children, regardless of their marriage status, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, etc.
Absolutely! You said it quite truthfully and succinctly. Well done.
True. The problem stems from the fact that, in most contracts, people form a contract to own a certain percentage of whatever it is. Say, 30%/30%/40% voting rights in a corporation. But in a marriage, it's a contract where two people own 100% of the assets jointly, which is a bitch to break (i.e. how to split up children).
The concept of marriage is religious.
There was marriage before there was Christianity and Islam. In Ancient Rome, marriage was not religious*. You are only saying that the concept of marriage is religious because what you know of marriage is religious. You only know of the Western Christian concept - yes, in Christianity and Islam, marriage is a religious concept. But not everywhere.
On these grounds I refuse to recognize every legal union as "marriage," especially those exclusively secular.
The important thing here is not whether you, or Southern Baptists, "recognize" legal unions. The important thing is that you, Southern Baptists, et al, don't tell other free people what they can and cannot do as long as such actions don't hurt anyone.
* There were actually more than one type of legally recognized marriage, and some of them did include religious rites. But the concept of marriage was not in and of itself religious in Ancient Rome - it was a very legalese type of contract.
You're a douchebag idiot if you don't know the difference. America doesn't mean the two continents in the western hemisphere, it means a resident of the country called the United States of America. You're a dumbass.
The supreme court has already interpreted that clause long ago that it essentially means separation of church and state.
OK OK I see your point.
But regardless of the results which may say there is a potential high sea level rise, it is stupid for a few politicians to prevent the planning commission from using new data.
Less guns only removes the instrument, not the intent to kill another person. While you may argue that the removal of such an effective instrument might lead to less deaths, that can just as well be said about poisons, toxic chemicals, steak knifes, pictures-of-you-fucking-your-mistress-in-your-wifes-hands, etc.
I understand what you are saying. I simply disagree that removing the tool won't lead to less deaths. People commit crimes of passion all the time. They may have the intent to kill, but the amount deaths during a crime of passion are inevitably less without the instruments to kill them. If everyone had machine guns there would be a lot more deaths than if everyone had regular guns. If everyone had guns there's be a lot more deaths if everyone had knives.
Note that I'm not countering your discussion of guns in civilians vs. government power, just the point that you say that there is an equal amount of deaths in a society with guns vs. knives.
How was the first murder only 6000 years ago? There was no murders for a hundred thousand years, but finally it happened 6000 years ago by a jew? Anti-semite!!!
When in history, has there even been ONE gun that has killed anybody or even injured them, where no human pulled the trigger caused the trigger to be pulled?
Just wait. The year 2018 is coming sooner than you think...
Switzerland is often brought up by American gun rights advocates. Switzerland is but one shining example in a sea of a hundred counterexamples. Yes, we wish we could be Switzerland, but we're not. We're America and we have 10K gun homicides a year, while they have like 6 a year.
The other countries with guns have plenty of violence too. Switzerland is just, well, better than the rest of us.
Guerrilla warfare is easily dealt with but bloody: when a group of people start to engage in such tactics you simply eliminate those people or at least a substantial portion of them. The Roman Empire didn't have a problem doing that, neither did Adolph Hitler nor Joseph Stalin, or for that matter Saddam Hussein and Mao Zedong. American politicians tend to have problems doing that kind of thing though, as it tends to lose elections or at least is unpopular in modern American culture.
The way you wrote could be construed as if it was a bad thing that Americans have problems doing that. I'm very proud that they do, or at least enough of us think so to make it unpopular. It is absolutely correct that such a war is dealt with by destroying almost all of the people - but a democratic society on the other half of the world should have no need of doing that unless in (actual) danger themselves.
Then again the better thing to do is not invade a country which doesn't want you there in the first place.
Amen.
I think you make a very well formed and educated point. I appreciate that you didn't attack the person who made the argument.
I offer you a counterargument: if all you have is a hammer then all of your problems seem like nails. If you have a gun, your problems can be solved by using it. Yes, we kill each other, but we are emotional beings who will "feel" like killing someone at one point and not the next. I don't think it's appropriate to say that it's only people and not the tools. If it's ok to have guns, why not machine guns? Why not tanks? Why not combat helicopters? Why not weapons of mass destruction?
I've heard that if every car had a spike on the steering wheel pointing at the driver, everyone would drive extremely carefully and there would be less automobile deaths. I just don't buy that: there would be lots of people who died by being impaled on the spike by accidents anyways. So we don't put spikes on the steering wheels as a preventative measure because it may prevent more deaths than it would kill people.
In the same manner, I don't think it's appropriate to give everyone a gun. It's a tool to kill people, and it's a tool which makes it really easy to do so. Sure, I can still be killed by another person without a gun, but if they have one it makes it MUCH easier to do so. One split second to pull the trigger. If you think it doesn't matter about the tool (knife vs. gun), then why does it not matter if they have an even better tool (gun vs. machine gun)? If everyone had a machine gun, would there be less killings because we all knew everyone had a machine gun, just like the spike on a steering wheel would make us not drive dangerously? I adamantly disagree. That's not the way people work: people commit crimes of passion all the time, regretting it later, but it still happens.
So, yes, guns are but tools and people still kill people without them, but I don't think it's appropriate to allow tools which allow death to be caused so easily to be given my neighbors. They drink, they get angry, and I'd rather them have a difficult time trying to kill me if they get a hunkering to try as such.
You're either not using proper English or proper logic. Just because there exists old data does not mean that it is logical not to use new data. I am aware that there is old data and that the law allows it to be used; what I am saying is that the law prevents the use of new data.
Except, of course,
Except what? I think you've replied to the wrong post.
You have a point. But it doesn't relate to this conversation.
This conversation has to do with the fact that the government is changing the way reality is measured. They are going to make it against the law to have certain flood zones be declared as flood zones, even though they are. What it affects is insurance rates, not what citizens can and cannot do.
Although I guess you could make a point that the government is trying to think for its citizens by declaring science invalid and to think everything will happen only based on previous data and not new data.
And of course, we all know that no credible scientists disagrees with global warming. If a scientist disagrees with the dangers posed by AGW, he obviously loses all credibility.
The problem is that 95% of climate scientists affirm the dangers posed by AGW, and 5% disagree. Conservatives act like it's 50%-50%. If 95% of a group educated on a subject are in agreement, why do more than 50% of American conservatives not believe them?
Think of it this way: if 5% of educated physicists disagree on some obscure nuance of dark matter while 95% are in agreement, why and how the fuck would over 50% of conservatives disagree with almost all of the educated physicists? Those people are embracing the Dark Ages lack of scientific learning and reason.
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been
According to the article, you are wrong:
Republican legislators went further. They circulated a bill that authorizes only the coastal commission to calculate how fast the sea is rising. It said the calculations must be based only on historic trends – leaving out the accelerated rise that climate scientists widely expect this century if warming increases and glaciers melt.
It specifically states two really awful things: 1, that the law prevents from looking forward by declaring that calculations cannot use new and complementing data, only old data, and 2. only the coastal commission can decide as such, which is a biased organization with an incentive to report low sea level rise.
I know you're just trolling but I have to reply anyway. The law doesn't prevent looking forward, it only prohibits speculation based on concepts proven to be flawed and exaggerated.
According to the article, you are wrong:
Republican legislators went further. They circulated a bill that authorizes only the coastal commission to calculate how fast the sea is rising. It said the calculations must be based only on historic trends – leaving out the accelerated rise that climate scientists widely expect this century if warming increases and glaciers melt.
It specifically says two really awful things: 1, that the law prevents from looking forward by calculations cannot use new and complementing data, only old data, and 2. only the coastal commission can decide as such, which is a biased organization with an incentive to report low sea level rise.