While it is easy enough to claim that people who want nothing to do with the White supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members and their websites and actions are somehow equivalent of driving your nice new car into a crowd of people and ending a person's existence - it isn't all that surprising that a lot of us don't particularly want to be associated with the White Supremacists or the Klan. Vanilla ISIS don't cut it.
I must confess I struggled to parse this sentence. Having read it through half a dozen times I'm still going to have to disagree (with the bit I highlighted, having removed some extraneous bits). There is no equivalence between people wanting nothing to do with <insert distasteful group here> and <insert random act of violence here>. Anyone who would claim otherwise is insane - just my opinion, of course.
That is pretty simple. But here is the problem.
People who will drive their cars into crowds of people that they don't agree with, are not going to be swayed by the rest of us just saying "We embrace you because your opinion is equal to ours". Nope. People who lynch black people and chant "Blood and soil, and drive their cars into protesters will only demand more.
I'm still not sure I see 'the problem', as you put it. Anyone who participates in a lynching or who has driven their car into a crowd of people has the right to demand, and receive, a fair trial, and not a lot else. Most people who are arguing for their rights are not saying "Come here, get a hug and everything will be ok", nor are they saying "we value your opinion as much as our own". No, what we're / they're saying is "you have the right to your opinion, however wrong we think it is". I'm more than a little surprised this needs to be spelled out to you.
There is a history with them. And like it or not, it must be forcefully responded to either now, or when they set the world on fire. The last time they held sway in much of the world, it got a little messy.
If someone breaks the law they should be tried and punished in accordance with the law. Someone, anyone, everyone, no matter what side of the political fence they sit, no matter how 'distasteful' you find their opinions, or how much their opinions accord with yours. The law is and should be blind in this regard. If someone hasn't broken the law they should not be punished, not by an arm of local or national government, and certainly not by some self appointed 'guardians of the moral majority'.
I tend to think "Don't grant yourself powers you wouldn't want your 'enemies' to have" is a pretty reasonable way to approach interactions with people you disagree with. (And please, don't respond with "But they wouldn't do the same for you". I don't care. I can be better than that!)
You can stop there. From the article "The virus-like particles prevented polio in animal experiments". So, not tested in humans yet (understandably) but, yes, tested. Additional upsides, beyond time and cost, are that this eliminates the risk of vaccine derived polio.
Even more intriguing is the potential for a flu vaccine. What makes that intriguing is that flu vaccine is often raised in eggs.
And not just flu vaccines. Vaccines against any viral threat. This is a game changing technology!
Here's what I think happened... Godaddy was not, contrary to some reports, actually hosting the site. They simply decided they didn't want to be the registrar for the domain name. The admins asked Google to be the registrar, and Google said no.
Hmm, if this is the case it puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and unfortunately not in a good way for GoDaddy. They probably won't lose their registrar status over it but that is technically now an option (if your read is correct, that is).
But what in my above comment could possibly be Overrated?
It wasn't me, but, to add a bit of context, I tend to get a lot of mod points, and I do occasionally down-rate posts for being overrated. I don't see it as punishing a bad post, it's to counter the 'bad' moderation of an average post. Why should a post that's not particularly insightful, informative, etc. (granted that's just in my opinion, but then I'm the one that has the mod points at that time) be at +5? Well, clearly it shouldn't, but if it's not a troll, it's not off-topic, etc. -1 overrated it is.
Do you just feel the need to punish me for the other comments I have made because you cannot moderate a comment more than once? I'll understand if you don't want to reply directly (as then the moderation would be negated), but if you would kindly reply as AC and tell me what about my original comment was overrated, I would appreciate it.
As I say, it wasn't me (this time, at least). For me, with my forum settings, your post is currently sitting at 4: Interesting. Well, yeah, it is mildly insightful (last paragraph), mildly interesting (second paragraph), but when you say "I read an interesting analysis about automobile purchasing behavior", while you then summarise it, you do not link to it or provide a useful reference to it, leaving us unable to determine for ourselves the accuracy of your assessment or whether anything else could be taken from the report. Would I apply an overrated mod to your post, probably not as it currently stands, but were it at 'Score 5: Informative' I almost certainly would do so.
No conspiracy, no stalker, no long term animosity, just a personal opinion based on this one post. While, as a species, we're predisposed to see patterns in everything, and make up stories to explain them, sometimes there's no pattern beyond pretty randomness, and other times the story we fabricate is wrong. Perspective, my friend!
I'm thinking that "no black people" does not a well-regulated militia make.
Heh, indeed.
You're the lawyer
A common misconception.
Wow. I had convinced myself you were, based on your name, and a number of your posts over the years. Unless you're just saying this (^) for some strange, legal, limitation of liability reasons I stand corrected. Sigh. Seems almost a shame.
I think that irony lies in the fact that, if they were not heavily armed, then the police would have protected them.
Ironies abound. I'd also consider it a slight irony however that, for all their weaponry, not a single shot was fired by the demonstrators, not in celebration, fun, offence, or self defense. Which is, or would have been, worse: The protesters using their arms to protect their legal right of protest, or them, using the laws available to them, suing the police for not adequately protecting their legal right to protest. Lose / Lose situation I'd say...:-/
I just have a certain amount of sympathy, and also some embarrassment, realizing that there are people in the US who personally fought against the Nazis, they watched friends die and had to do things they never thought they would have to do, only to see a bunch of young entitled kids with no sense of history carrying Nazi flags around American cities because they don't like black people. It's shameful, and it's entirely lost on these kids. The people who defeated the Nazi army are still alive, and they have to watch this happen. It's embarrassing to realize that this is part of America.
Agreed. It's embarrassing to realise they're also active in the UK, where I live, and on the rise throughout Europe as a whole, albeit they're still a very very tiny minority. I'm just not sure that "tearing down the statues of their great grandfathers' heroes" or refusing to listen or speak to them is likely to improve their sense of history. Then again, I'm not sure anything will do that. Some people are, almost certainly, just too set in their ways. Still, as time passes, so do once common points of view.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure 'chatting', but we should probably stop 'spamming' a days old thread now.;-)
I will start by saying I don't really disagree, as such, with anything you wrote, however:
Well, there's this (emphasis mine):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary...
That is the amendment I was alluding to. I understand there's a fair amount of disagreement as to what the various words mean / meant.
So the next question would be whether this is a well regulated organization, or a bunch of guys who bought body armor and helmets and came as a show of force and intimidation.
Probably the latter, but then again, back to the disagreements, that might depend on what "regulated" means. I mean, their organisations might well have fairly strict rules.
Them showing up like that doesn't require violence, but it quite obviously puts violence on peoples' minds. When you show up armed and armored, it makes people pay attention.
I'll certainly go along with the latter part of this statement. Even now walking through airports (in the US especially) and walking passed the big men with big guns makes me a little wary. I made the 'mistake', the last time I arrived in the US, of meeting the eye of one of these men. Accosted and Intimidated is probably a fairly accurate description of what followed. So, as well as making people pay attention, I'd say what it does is, rather than put violence into peoples' minds, makes people aware of the consequences of any actions they take. Violent extremists, as in those who initiate the violence, are present at both ends of the 'political' spectrum.
So this "militia" (and I use that term here very loosely) is apparently impeding the operation of the police because of their heavily armed and armored appearance. That's pretty much exactly opposite of the purpose of the second amendment quoted above. It seems like when they show up like that, they are basically daring people to attack them.
Interesting. You're the lawyer, not I, but I thought the purpose of the second amendment was to guard against governmental overreach. The police are an arm of the government (yeah, I get that in this case these were state police, rather than federal ones but, to my mind at least, there's a clue to relevance in the term state government), so it could be argued that this 'militia' were acting entirely within the spirit of the second amendment... up until the point they started wailing on other civilians that is...
If they want to drive cars through crowds of people and dare others to attack them that I think that's a bit of an issue.
Damn straight that's an issue! Murder, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and probably a whole host of other laws as well. If you, or anyone else, thought I was condoning that you were mistaken. In no circumstances was what he did right!
And, if they want to parade through American streets waving the flags of governments that our country has fought extremely bloody wars against, then those people are probably not looking for any kind of debate. If they're going to wave a battle flag of the Confederate army, which fought against the United States, or a Nazi party flag, which 60 million or so people died fighting against, then sure they have the right to say whatever they want to say, but I wonder why they even live in the United States in the first place. This is not the Confederate States of America, and it's not the Third Reich.
Yeah, I'm not going to second guess what's going through their heads. Just because I defend their right to do it doesn't mean I understand it, or even approve of it. The best way I can phrase it is: They have a right to be wrong.
Your post kind of jumps all over the place, I feel like I'm reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
Heh, sorry about that. The 'footnotes' were intended to make the ma
Pollination is carried out by insects, not just bees. Bees are just the public friendly face of pollination, probably because they also provide honey, while all flies do is, in popular perception, eat shit and carry diseases.
Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
Possible, though, since there are other insecticidal options, regulation might work better - the EU wide ban on neonics being a case in point.
Long term, I suspect species migration will also be a telling factor. Evolution might also have a say in the matter.
People will be growing their own meat in their kitchens within ten years, maybe five, with a machine about the size of a microwave oven, producing disease free meat, only the amount that the user wants, so no waste, and ANY meat you want - so you can eat the meat of any animal you like, (within reason). You will be able to grow meat with a specified amount of fat. Just as technology has allowed us to do things today that were impossible fifty years ago, this will be the same.
I admire your optimism, I'm extremely skeptical of your description and timeline.
Shortly after this is being eaten by 50% of the population, there will be a campaign to ban all animal farming, which will succeed, because nobody will be able to justify torturing and killing animals to obtain something that can be obtained without violence of any kind.
I've run out, any chance I can have some of what you're smoking?
And last of all, the maching you use to grow the meat in your kitchen will eventually be CHEAPER than any form of normal meat you can buy.
Just like vegetarian sausages are cheaper than 'proper' sausages in the supermarket today. Oh, wait...
I'm glad to see that some posters, at least, have not tunneled so far into their ideological foxholes that they are are now trapped; so blinded by hate that they're incapable of rational thought, reasonable discussion, or even simply reading what someone else has actually written, rather than raging against some imaginary argument that exists only within the confines of their own tortured minds (1).
Is "neither" an option? How about because they show up looking like this [twitter.com]?
Neither is almost always an option, and, tbh, when someone offers you a false dilemma it's probably the most sensible option you can take. Further, when presented with said choice you should probably question the motives of the poser. I had resorted to use of it to highlight the ridiculous notion that merely wearing certain things was guaranteed to result in violence. Which brings me nicely to your question. So, they're a militia, looking like they're in some kind of uniform (kinda), walking as a fairly ordered group, bearing arms, turning up to a lawful demonstration. Isn't there some kind of protection, specifically laid out in (amendments to) your Constitution for groups like this? Looks like they're making a fairly specific constitutional point to me. I can't say, on seeing, or hearing, either of the groups in those first two mini-clips, that I'd feel impelled to do them harm. Sure, they do look somewhat intimidating (2), but certainly no more so than the police appear. I can't say I agree, or disagree for that matter, with what they stand for, or what they say (3) but I'm pretty sure they have a right to believe it, a right to say it, and I'm pretty sure their forebears died for those rights same as (y)ours did.
The entire situation as I see it is crazy, and it's getting harder and harder to separate what is true from what is simply made up, and to not see conspiracies (4) practically everywhere.
(1) Yup, I have become slightly irritated. I will try not to sink to their level, but sorry, in advance, if I go a bit overboard.
(2) Actually some of them look almost comical, but I'm sure that wasn't the look they were going for...
(3) I have no idea what they stand for, and, before someone tries to speak for them, I'm not really interested either. I'm never likely to meet them. In the unlikely event that I do however, I'll let them speak for themselves. They have that right, whether I agree with what they have to say or not.
(4) Let me see if I understand this: This rally was organised by a dyed in the wool Democrat, who's set up and organisation called "Unite the Right" (5), and marketed it to ultra far right groups (as well as other groups with certain unsavoury views) as a melting pot for like minded 'individualists', to protest 'stuff'. Having got wind of this rally large numbers of ideologically opposed protesters traveled, some long distances, down there to protest the march. Local politicians then told the police to not police the various groups, until they were herded together, and, for some strange reason, violence erupted (6).
(5) I am reminded of the policy of regarding naming things the opposite of what they're intended to achieve, and the adage 'divide and conquer'. If you wanted to drive a wedge between 'moderate' and 'hard-core' Republicans I would struggle to think of a better way to do it than this.
(6) Incitement to Riot is where 'Free Speech' ends for me. Crowd psychology is both complicated and yet strangely simple. While there may be wisdom in crowds there's also madness, and taking advantage of that madness in order to trigger violence is, put simply, wrong (7).
(7) The person who threw the first stone / gas grenade / water balloon at the demonstrators was wrong. The person who encouraged them to do so was wrong. The person who drove his car into a crowd of protesters was wrong. So much wrong, on both sides. And that's always been my key point. There being wrong on 'the other side' doesn't make your side (8) right. There
I had a feeling you'd resort of bad language, just like I just knew you'd accuse me of being a Nazi. I have to wonder what your problem is.
Just for the record I am not a Nazi, nor am I a Nazi apologist. I do however disagree with much of what you've said, throughout this topic. About the only thing you got (partially) right was the post that started this particular thread.
I'm also pretty sure that nothing I can say will persuade you you're wrong to any degree, and there's almost certainly nothing you've got to say which will persuade me that you're right (about, for example, carrying a flag counting as incitement to violence).
One only hopes we never meet, as I'm not sure what else is likely to trigger you to violence.
FYI I'll refrain from responding to any further comments / insults by you.
Sometimes Occam's Razor does lead one to the wrong conclusion however.
The concern is not that once the 'ice seal' over these volcanos gets sufficiently thin or melts entirely the volcanos will be free to erupt. Anyone who suggested such a thing would, quite rightly, be laughed out of the geology lab.
In reality, large amounts of water, and ice, actually gets quite heavy. Heavy enough to deform the crust in fact. Now, ask yourself, what happens when the ice that's built up over these volcanos starts to melt?
Melting Ice -> Crustal (Re)Deformation -> Increasing Volcanic Activity. In essence that's all there is to it.
On the plus side, massive volcanic eruptions tend to lead to periods of intense global cooling...:P
Did you know that the forms one has to fill out to get naturalized as an American citizen requires denying any affiliation with Nazism? Still to this day.
That I didn't know! Interesting, though almost certainly (mostly) irrelevant to the matter at hand. After all, perhaps these people were simply born in the USA, therefore are American citizens from birth?
Anyway I feel I should say, despite all the outrage generated, I'm with GP here.
Political beliefs, even membership of a political party, should not be an offence punishable by death. From an outsider's point of view, given the state of US politics at the moment, and the apparently increasing divide between left and right (Dems & Reps) you might want to consider the italicised text as a sensible precaution!
Any gathering displaying the regalia of Nazism is not peaceful by default.
Hmm, not peaceful by default? Really? Would that be because displaying the swastika* is violence in itself, or because someone seeing the swastika displayed is automatically impelled to violence?
it is impossible to wave around Nazi symbols without inciting to violence.
Ah, I see, I think. The latter then. Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with you, and suggest that you're the one that has problems if someone waving a flag, no matter what symbols are displayed on it, is not only sufficient for you, but triggers you, to violence.
In short, fuck off and die, Nazi scum. We used to hang people like you.
Throughout history there have been plenty of people who resort to killing others who disagree with them, their politics, their background, etc. If you're one of these people in what way are you any different to the Nazis you so strongly hate?
*Worth mentioning that the Nazis co-opted the swastika from the Hindus. If you're so strongly triggered by the mere sight of it, I suggest you never travel to India.
Most planets with life don't evolve intelligent life. All this time on Earth and it has only happened, essentially, once.
This is a debated issue, not to be mistaken as fact. The fact that we are now the only intelligent biped on the planet, the rest having gone extinct, doesn't mean we have always been the only one, or that we are the current pinnacle of a linear process of evolution from dumb through to smart, with no other branches or independents on the way.
YOU try fitting the world's population across the globe in huts, one per person or family, and still have room and infrastructure to provide just food for everyone.
A family of four can 'survive' on 1 acre (22' x 220' - roughly 7m x 70m) of arable land plus common grazing.
Dividing the surface area of Earth by the world's population gives each of us a parcel of roughly 280m x 280m, of which roughly 30% is land, of which roughly 12.5% is arable land (numbers rounded to make them 'nice'). So, we each have, roughly, a 55m square patch of arable land (for growing food and fodder), as well as a 140m square patch of other land (for building, grazing, power generation, etc.), and a 235m square area of water, both fresh and salt (for water, food, power generation, etc.).
In other words the world has roughly 24 times (6 x 4) as much land as we'd, individually, need to 'survive', given the current global population.
Of course, every increment of living standards above purely subsistence decreases that multiple but that wasn't, strictly, what you asked...
To be perfectly honest I'd still question whether referring to 'vaccines causing problems as a misconception' doesn't imply that (you believe) vaccines don't cause problems, which isn't strictly true, although in generality I agree with you that vaccines are far far more beneficial than baneful. However, maybe the inference was all mine, and no implication was intended. No harm, no foul...:-)
And yes, I was, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek, suggesting that certain responses would place you firmly in the fanatic camp. That your response was well thought out, non-adversarial, and didn't devolve to name calling or insults was a breath of fresh air, and does you credit.
Why do you tell us bollocks like this? Studying in Scotland is free of cost. You are supposed to pay a 'honour fee' of 2000 pounds at the end of your studies. There are no 'crushing large bills'... moron.
You're quite correct if the student is from Scotland or mainland EU.
You're completely wrong if you're talking about students from England, Northern Ireland, or Wales.
Given that the GP made no reference to the origin of the students, nor did the study specify that the students polled were exclusively 'native', your absolute statement, as fact, is unwarranted, and your use of the term 'moron' unpleasant and unjustified.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is easy enough to claim that people who want nothing to do with the White supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members and their websites and actions are somehow equivalent of driving your nice new car into a crowd of people and ending a person's existence - it isn't all that surprising that a lot of us don't particularly want to be associated with the White Supremacists or the Klan. Vanilla ISIS don't cut it.
I must confess I struggled to parse this sentence. Having read it through half a dozen times I'm still going to have to disagree (with the bit I highlighted, having removed some extraneous bits). There is no equivalence between people wanting nothing to do with <insert distasteful group here> and <insert random act of violence here>. Anyone who would claim otherwise is insane - just my opinion, of course.
That is pretty simple. But here is the problem.
People who will drive their cars into crowds of people that they don't agree with, are not going to be swayed by the rest of us just saying "We embrace you because your opinion is equal to ours". Nope. People who lynch black people and chant "Blood and soil, and drive their cars into protesters will only demand more.
I'm still not sure I see 'the problem', as you put it. Anyone who participates in a lynching or who has driven their car into a crowd of people has the right to demand, and receive, a fair trial, and not a lot else. Most people who are arguing for their rights are not saying "Come here, get a hug and everything will be ok", nor are they saying "we value your opinion as much as our own". No, what we're / they're saying is "you have the right to your opinion, however wrong we think it is". I'm more than a little surprised this needs to be spelled out to you.
There is a history with them. And like it or not, it must be forcefully responded to either now, or when they set the world on fire. The last time they held sway in much of the world, it got a little messy.
If someone breaks the law they should be tried and punished in accordance with the law. Someone, anyone, everyone, no matter what side of the political fence they sit, no matter how 'distasteful' you find their opinions, or how much their opinions accord with yours. The law is and should be blind in this regard. If someone hasn't broken the law they should not be punished, not by an arm of local or national government, and certainly not by some self appointed 'guardians of the moral majority'.
I tend to think "Don't grant yourself powers you wouldn't want your 'enemies' to have" is a pretty reasonable way to approach interactions with people you disagree with. (And please, don't respond with "But they wouldn't do the same for you". I don't care. I can be better than that!)
What were the politics of those who practically wiped out the Native Americans?
Mmm, immigrants and globalism are the root of all the world's problems
I can't say I saw GP say that they were.
Your sarcastic statement, however, is as patently false as the statement: Immigrants and globalism don't cause any problems.
Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between, and trying to pretend otherwise just makes people look like ignorant fools.
I assume they have tested this but ...
You can stop there. From the article "The virus-like particles prevented polio in animal experiments". So, not tested in humans yet (understandably) but, yes, tested. Additional upsides, beyond time and cost, are that this eliminates the risk of vaccine derived polio.
Even more intriguing is the potential for a flu vaccine. What makes that intriguing is that flu vaccine is often raised in eggs.
And not just flu vaccines. Vaccines against any viral threat. This is a game changing technology!
Here's what I think happened ... Godaddy was not, contrary to some reports, actually hosting the site. They simply decided they didn't want to be the registrar for the domain name. The admins asked Google to be the registrar, and Google said no.
Hmm, if this is the case it puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and unfortunately not in a good way for GoDaddy. They probably won't lose their registrar status over it but that is technically now an option (if your read is correct, that is).
What a day to have no mod points...
Wise words indeed!
But what in my above comment could possibly be Overrated?
It wasn't me, but, to add a bit of context, I tend to get a lot of mod points, and I do occasionally down-rate posts for being overrated. I don't see it as punishing a bad post, it's to counter the 'bad' moderation of an average post. Why should a post that's not particularly insightful, informative, etc. (granted that's just in my opinion, but then I'm the one that has the mod points at that time) be at +5? Well, clearly it shouldn't, but if it's not a troll, it's not off-topic, etc. -1 overrated it is.
Do you just feel the need to punish me for the other comments I have made because you cannot moderate a comment more than once? I'll understand if you don't want to reply directly (as then the moderation would be negated), but if you would kindly reply as AC and tell me what about my original comment was overrated, I would appreciate it.
As I say, it wasn't me (this time, at least). For me, with my forum settings, your post is currently sitting at 4: Interesting. Well, yeah, it is mildly insightful (last paragraph), mildly interesting (second paragraph), but when you say "I read an interesting analysis about automobile purchasing behavior", while you then summarise it, you do not link to it or provide a useful reference to it, leaving us unable to determine for ourselves the accuracy of your assessment or whether anything else could be taken from the report. Would I apply an overrated mod to your post, probably not as it currently stands, but were it at 'Score 5: Informative' I almost certainly would do so.
No conspiracy, no stalker, no long term animosity, just a personal opinion based on this one post. While, as a species, we're predisposed to see patterns in everything, and make up stories to explain them, sometimes there's no pattern beyond pretty randomness, and other times the story we fabricate is wrong. Perspective, my friend!
Or is he inside, looking out?
Who knows what listening to 'ein kleine nachtmusik' too many times whilst on psychedelics might do...
I'm thinking that "no black people" does not a well-regulated militia make.
Heh, indeed.
You're the lawyer
A common misconception.
Wow. I had convinced myself you were, based on your name, and a number of your posts over the years. Unless you're just saying this (^) for some strange, legal, limitation of liability reasons I stand corrected. Sigh. Seems almost a shame.
I think that irony lies in the fact that, if they were not heavily armed, then the police would have protected them.
Ironies abound. I'd also consider it a slight irony however that, for all their weaponry, not a single shot was fired by the demonstrators, not in celebration, fun, offence, or self defense. Which is, or would have been, worse: The protesters using their arms to protect their legal right of protest, or them, using the laws available to them, suing the police for not adequately protecting their legal right to protest. Lose / Lose situation I'd say... :-/
I just have a certain amount of sympathy, and also some embarrassment, realizing that there are people in the US who personally fought against the Nazis, they watched friends die and had to do things they never thought they would have to do, only to see a bunch of young entitled kids with no sense of history carrying Nazi flags around American cities because they don't like black people. It's shameful, and it's entirely lost on these kids. The people who defeated the Nazi army are still alive, and they have to watch this happen. It's embarrassing to realize that this is part of America.
Agreed. It's embarrassing to realise they're also active in the UK, where I live, and on the rise throughout Europe as a whole, albeit they're still a very very tiny minority. I'm just not sure that "tearing down the statues of their great grandfathers' heroes" or refusing to listen or speak to them is likely to improve their sense of history. Then again, I'm not sure anything will do that. Some people are, almost certainly, just too set in their ways. Still, as time passes, so do once common points of view.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure 'chatting', but we should probably stop 'spamming' a days old thread now. ;-)
I will start by saying I don't really disagree, as such, with anything you wrote, however:
Well, there's this (emphasis mine):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary ...
That is the amendment I was alluding to. I understand there's a fair amount of disagreement as to what the various words mean / meant.
So the next question would be whether this is a well regulated organization, or a bunch of guys who bought body armor and helmets and came as a show of force and intimidation.
Probably the latter, but then again, back to the disagreements, that might depend on what "regulated" means. I mean, their organisations might well have fairly strict rules.
Them showing up like that doesn't require violence, but it quite obviously puts violence on peoples' minds. When you show up armed and armored, it makes people pay attention.
I'll certainly go along with the latter part of this statement. Even now walking through airports (in the US especially) and walking passed the big men with big guns makes me a little wary. I made the 'mistake', the last time I arrived in the US, of meeting the eye of one of these men. Accosted and Intimidated is probably a fairly accurate description of what followed. So, as well as making people pay attention, I'd say what it does is, rather than put violence into peoples' minds, makes people aware of the consequences of any actions they take. Violent extremists, as in those who initiate the violence, are present at both ends of the 'political' spectrum.
So this "militia" (and I use that term here very loosely) is apparently impeding the operation of the police because of their heavily armed and armored appearance. That's pretty much exactly opposite of the purpose of the second amendment quoted above. It seems like when they show up like that, they are basically daring people to attack them.
Interesting. You're the lawyer, not I, but I thought the purpose of the second amendment was to guard against governmental overreach. The police are an arm of the government (yeah, I get that in this case these were state police, rather than federal ones but, to my mind at least, there's a clue to relevance in the term state government), so it could be argued that this 'militia' were acting entirely within the spirit of the second amendment ... up until the point they started wailing on other civilians that is...
If they want to drive cars through crowds of people and dare others to attack them that I think that's a bit of an issue.
Damn straight that's an issue! Murder, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and probably a whole host of other laws as well. If you, or anyone else, thought I was condoning that you were mistaken. In no circumstances was what he did right!
And, if they want to parade through American streets waving the flags of governments that our country has fought extremely bloody wars against, then those people are probably not looking for any kind of debate. If they're going to wave a battle flag of the Confederate army, which fought against the United States, or a Nazi party flag, which 60 million or so people died fighting against, then sure they have the right to say whatever they want to say, but I wonder why they even live in the United States in the first place. This is not the Confederate States of America, and it's not the Third Reich.
Yeah, I'm not going to second guess what's going through their heads. Just because I defend their right to do it doesn't mean I understand it, or even approve of it. The best way I can phrase it is: They have a right to be wrong.
Your post kind of jumps all over the place, I feel like I'm reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
Heh, sorry about that. The 'footnotes' were intended to make the ma
"right-think lefty fanatics"
You contradict yourself.
No, he really didn't, but we can call them proponents of liberal intolerance if you prefer.
No bees means no pollination.
Pollination is carried out by insects, not just bees. Bees are just the public friendly face of pollination, probably because they also provide honey, while all flies do is, in popular perception, eat shit and carry diseases.
Farmers recognizing this will voluntarily reduce their use of these pesticides once they consider what manual pollination would entail.
Possible, though, since there are other insecticidal options, regulation might work better - the EU wide ban on neonics being a case in point.
Long term, I suspect species migration will also be a telling factor. Evolution might also have a say in the matter.
People will be growing their own meat in their kitchens within ten years, maybe five, with a machine about the size of a microwave oven, producing disease free meat, only the amount that the user wants, so no waste, and ANY meat you want - so you can eat the meat of any animal you like, (within reason). You will be able to grow meat with a specified amount of fat. Just as technology has allowed us to do things today that were impossible fifty years ago, this will be the same.
I admire your optimism, I'm extremely skeptical of your description and timeline.
Shortly after this is being eaten by 50% of the population, there will be a campaign to ban all animal farming, which will succeed, because nobody will be able to justify torturing and killing animals to obtain something that can be obtained without violence of any kind.
I've run out, any chance I can have some of what you're smoking?
And last of all, the maching you use to grow the meat in your kitchen will eventually be CHEAPER than any form of normal meat you can buy.
Just like vegetarian sausages are cheaper than 'proper' sausages in the supermarket today. Oh, wait...
I'm glad to see that some posters, at least, have not tunneled so far into their ideological foxholes that they are are now trapped; so blinded by hate that they're incapable of rational thought, reasonable discussion, or even simply reading what someone else has actually written, rather than raging against some imaginary argument that exists only within the confines of their own tortured minds (1).
Is "neither" an option? How about because they show up looking like this [twitter.com]?
Neither is almost always an option, and, tbh, when someone offers you a false dilemma it's probably the most sensible option you can take. Further, when presented with said choice you should probably question the motives of the poser. I had resorted to use of it to highlight the ridiculous notion that merely wearing certain things was guaranteed to result in violence. Which brings me nicely to your question. So, they're a militia, looking like they're in some kind of uniform (kinda), walking as a fairly ordered group, bearing arms, turning up to a lawful demonstration. Isn't there some kind of protection, specifically laid out in (amendments to) your Constitution for groups like this? Looks like they're making a fairly specific constitutional point to me. I can't say, on seeing, or hearing, either of the groups in those first two mini-clips, that I'd feel impelled to do them harm. Sure, they do look somewhat intimidating (2), but certainly no more so than the police appear. I can't say I agree, or disagree for that matter, with what they stand for, or what they say (3) but I'm pretty sure they have a right to believe it, a right to say it, and I'm pretty sure their forebears died for those rights same as (y)ours did.
The entire situation as I see it is crazy, and it's getting harder and harder to separate what is true from what is simply made up, and to not see conspiracies (4) practically everywhere.
(1) Yup, I have become slightly irritated. I will try not to sink to their level, but sorry, in advance, if I go a bit overboard.
(2) Actually some of them look almost comical, but I'm sure that wasn't the look they were going for...
(3) I have no idea what they stand for, and, before someone tries to speak for them, I'm not really interested either. I'm never likely to meet them. In the unlikely event that I do however, I'll let them speak for themselves. They have that right, whether I agree with what they have to say or not.
(4) Let me see if I understand this: This rally was organised by a dyed in the wool Democrat, who's set up and organisation called "Unite the Right" (5), and marketed it to ultra far right groups (as well as other groups with certain unsavoury views) as a melting pot for like minded 'individualists', to protest 'stuff'. Having got wind of this rally large numbers of ideologically opposed protesters traveled, some long distances, down there to protest the march. Local politicians then told the police to not police the various groups, until they were herded together, and, for some strange reason, violence erupted (6).
(5) I am reminded of the policy of regarding naming things the opposite of what they're intended to achieve, and the adage 'divide and conquer'. If you wanted to drive a wedge between 'moderate' and 'hard-core' Republicans I would struggle to think of a better way to do it than this.
(6) Incitement to Riot is where 'Free Speech' ends for me. Crowd psychology is both complicated and yet strangely simple. While there may be wisdom in crowds there's also madness, and taking advantage of that madness in order to trigger violence is, put simply, wrong (7).
(7) The person who threw the first stone / gas grenade / water balloon at the demonstrators was wrong. The person who encouraged them to do so was wrong. The person who drove his car into a crowd of protesters was wrong. So much wrong, on both sides. And that's always been my key point. There being wrong on 'the other side' doesn't make your side (8) right. There
I had a feeling you'd resort of bad language, just like I just knew you'd accuse me of being a Nazi. I have to wonder what your problem is.
Just for the record I am not a Nazi, nor am I a Nazi apologist. I do however disagree with much of what you've said, throughout this topic. About the only thing you got (partially) right was the post that started this particular thread.
I'm also pretty sure that nothing I can say will persuade you you're wrong to any degree, and there's almost certainly nothing you've got to say which will persuade me that you're right (about, for example, carrying a flag counting as incitement to violence).
One only hopes we never meet, as I'm not sure what else is likely to trigger you to violence.
FYI I'll refrain from responding to any further comments / insults by you.
Informative? ROFL!
/*Thinks for a moment*/
Naturally - this angers the volcano gods. They can only be appeased through sacrifice.
Or maybe you know something I don't.
Could you perhaps expand on this a little, blessed prophet of the new age?
The evidence available to us debunks the theory that Co2 will cause runaway heat. Its simple as that.
If you could provide this evidence I'd be much appreciative.
Thanks, in advance...
Sometimes Occam's Razor does lead one to the wrong conclusion however.
The concern is not that once the 'ice seal' over these volcanos gets sufficiently thin or melts entirely the volcanos will be free to erupt. Anyone who suggested such a thing would, quite rightly, be laughed out of the geology lab.
In reality, large amounts of water, and ice, actually gets quite heavy. Heavy enough to deform the crust in fact. Now, ask yourself, what happens when the ice that's built up over these volcanos starts to melt?
Melting Ice -> Crustal (Re)Deformation -> Increasing Volcanic Activity. In essence that's all there is to it.
On the plus side, massive volcanic eruptions tend to lead to periods of intense global cooling... :P
Did you know that the forms one has to fill out to get naturalized as an American citizen requires denying any affiliation with Nazism? Still to this day.
That I didn't know! Interesting, though almost certainly (mostly) irrelevant to the matter at hand. After all, perhaps these people were simply born in the USA, therefore are American citizens from birth?
Anyway I feel I should say, despite all the outrage generated, I'm with GP here.
Political beliefs, even membership of a political party, should not be an offence punishable by death. From an outsider's point of view, given the state of US politics at the moment, and the apparently increasing divide between left and right (Dems & Reps) you might want to consider the italicised text as a sensible precaution!
Any gathering displaying the regalia of Nazism is not peaceful by default.
Hmm, not peaceful by default? Really? Would that be because displaying the swastika* is violence in itself, or because someone seeing the swastika displayed is automatically impelled to violence?
it is impossible to wave around Nazi symbols without inciting to violence.
Ah, I see, I think. The latter then. Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with you, and suggest that you're the one that has problems if someone waving a flag, no matter what symbols are displayed on it, is not only sufficient for you, but triggers you, to violence.
In short, fuck off and die, Nazi scum. We used to hang people like you.
Throughout history there have been plenty of people who resort to killing others who disagree with them, their politics, their background, etc. If you're one of these people in what way are you any different to the Nazis you so strongly hate?
*Worth mentioning that the Nazis co-opted the swastika from the Hindus. If you're so strongly triggered by the mere sight of it, I suggest you never travel to India.
Most planets with life don't evolve intelligent life. All this time on Earth and it has only happened, essentially, once.
This is a debated issue, not to be mistaken as fact. The fact that we are now the only intelligent biped on the planet, the rest having gone extinct, doesn't mean we have always been the only one, or that we are the current pinnacle of a linear process of evolution from dumb through to smart, with no other branches or independents on the way.
YOU try fitting the world's population across the globe in huts, one per person or family, and still have room and infrastructure to provide just food for everyone.
A family of four can 'survive' on 1 acre (22' x 220' - roughly 7m x 70m) of arable land plus common grazing.
Dividing the surface area of Earth by the world's population gives each of us a parcel of roughly 280m x 280m, of which roughly 30% is land, of which roughly 12.5% is arable land (numbers rounded to make them 'nice'). So, we each have, roughly, a 55m square patch of arable land (for growing food and fodder), as well as a 140m square patch of other land (for building, grazing, power generation, etc.), and a 235m square area of water, both fresh and salt (for water, food, power generation, etc.).
In other words the world has roughly 24 times (6 x 4) as much land as we'd, individually, need to 'survive', given the current global population.
Of course, every increment of living standards above purely subsistence decreases that multiple but that wasn't, strictly, what you asked...
Good response.
To be perfectly honest I'd still question whether referring to 'vaccines causing problems as a misconception' doesn't imply that (you believe) vaccines don't cause problems, which isn't strictly true, although in generality I agree with you that vaccines are far far more beneficial than baneful. However, maybe the inference was all mine, and no implication was intended. No harm, no foul... :-)
And yes, I was, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek, suggesting that certain responses would place you firmly in the fanatic camp. That your response was well thought out, non-adversarial, and didn't devolve to name calling or insults was a breath of fresh air, and does you credit.
Thank you.
Why do you tell us bollocks like this? ... moron.
Studying in Scotland is free of cost. You are supposed to pay a 'honour fee' of 2000 pounds at the end of your studies.
There are no 'crushing large bills'
You're quite correct if the student is from Scotland or mainland EU.
You're completely wrong if you're talking about students from England, Northern Ireland, or Wales.
Given that the GP made no reference to the origin of the students, nor did the study specify that the students polled were exclusively 'native', your absolute statement, as fact, is unwarranted, and your use of the term 'moron' unpleasant and unjustified.
Probably (partially - almost certainly), and not really, in that order.