Or maybe that means they will be cheaper, to account for the probable higher required replacement frequency. Or maybe they will fail, and learn from it, adjust, and succeed? Ie., why be negative about something positive? What are you, a battery?
"It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops."
Locked up guns are as good as no guns, when there's an active shooter, don't you think?
That's the whole point, that even military officers were prohibited from carrying side arms or other guns in a usable manner while on active duty domestically.
Yes, but it's not stupid in the context of mission accomplished.
Which is more than can be said for the real stupid of serially laying waste to multiple predominantly Muslim nations, followed by permitting an unrestricted flow of migrants and refugees from those same nations into the western nations that collectively committed this serial crime.
The left cries "racism" if you propose not letting the refugees in.
The right (and left) cries "more war" in response to every catastrophe resulting from the prior interventionist war.
We are more committed to our ideologies than we are to the survival of our own nations. Ironically, we have a lot more in common with the terrorists than we realize.
Gun safety rules demand strict "muzzle discipline." A gun must be kept pointed away from anyone, regardless of being holstered, safety on, round in chamber, etc.
So if someone asked me to take off a CCW because somehow my movement was making it point at them, I'd do it, or find a better way to holster so the gun doesn't point at people when I'm doing whatever.
Yes, it's extremely unlikely to go off. But with safety issues, there is also the consequence side of the equation. The consequence of a gun accident is unacceptable.
But why keep them? That is what is so insane about all of this. We keep wanting to fight them, at the same time as letting them in to our fucking countries. Kick them out! And keep them out. Then leave their fucking countries alone. Why is this so impossible for people to figure out? There are 2 choices, and only two choices:
1. Exterminate every Muslim (if you want to solve the problem, while simultaneously proving ourselves even worse barbarians)
2. Separate the west from Islam (if you want to solve the problem with the sincere intention of minimizing violence in general)
The following is not a choice that will work, as it is what we have been doing, and it's not working:
3. Fight Muslims in Muslim nations, and let more Muslims into western nations. (more of the same)
"The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon."
It's not that simple. If the proportion of those who want Sharia reaches critical mass in any given pocket of highly concentrated Muslims, then Sharia law it will be. And it will stay unless the French government is willing to put it down, and keep it down. Otherwise such pockets will be cancers that will continue to grow.
Correct. They are a pre-industrial non-civilization. They are no threat at all. Unless we just say "come on over!"
I recall all the "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over there," talk.
So what do we do? Fight them over there (which pisses them off) AND let them come over here!
The situation is so hopeless, and rationality so far removed from the picture, that sane people should probably just ignore it. There is nothing that can be done to fix stupid.
They don't need much in the way of weapons and tech. if we are simply stupid. So far, we are acting so stupid that if we continue at it, the victory of ISIS is a foregone conclusion.
"Liberals" in this context constitutes that group of people who, in order to suppress rational discourse, will call anyone "Islamophobe" or "racist" who dares to rationally condemn Islam for what it is--a mass popular delusion with a propensity to make its followers turn to violence to spread Islam and dish out retribution.
"Liberals" are also those who think that we should be nice to Muslims and just let them enter our nations unrestricted.
P.S. This in no way implies that I support any aspect of US foreign policy or similar policies of other western powers.
Attacks are NOT justified because someone else attacked someone else in the past. But are attacks justified when someone is attacking someone else in the present?
"Waking up" presumes rationality may prevail. It will not. The same forces within the human mind that lead to the mass delusion of religion, are also what enables Marxism and its derivative ideologies to persist.
Yes, so if they are going to treat people like shit, then let them into their country, they are beyond stupid if they don't think this is the predictable outcome.
It is irrelevant if a bunch of irrelevant organizations condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists and repeat the tired lies that Islam doesn't teach violence. Because one can find countless madrassas that do teach violence. And there is no central authority to certify whose interpretation is right. So as long as the Quran retains the teachings that lead to this behavior, it is rational to condemn Islam as being a religion with a strong tendency to be interpreted in a way that leads to violence.
The scientific approach to this would be to formulate the hypothesis:
"Islam is religion of peace, no different than all the other major religions."
Now what does this hypothesis predict? That terrorism should be equally distributed among religious followers.
This is observably false, and in fact, the vast majority of barbaric terrorism and brutal treatment of human beings is concentrated among Muslims.
To continue to apologize for Islam and "believe" the validity of a false hypothesis is irrationality--it is the same mental defect that allows mass delusion in the form of religion to exist and persist in the first place.
Policies based on this irrationality will lead, predictably, to more terrorism and sorrow. Though you will refuse to admit it (predictably), your position is part of the cause of the terrorism.
If one were to understand the predictable consequences of attempting to bludgeon Muslim nations into conformance with western values by force, and allowing millions of unqualified Muslim migrants to enter western nations, and yet still persisted in maintaining these policies--such a person or government would be the epitome of hate and cruelty.
But ignorance is no excuse. The real haters and racists, are those who refuse to admit that Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization. Because through their policies of constant military intervention and inviting countless unqualified Muslim migrants into western nations, they share direct responsibility, along with Islam, for the tragic state of affairs we are enduring.
I know some rich folks think like this, but their opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's including mine. One of the problems is a lack of original ideas for reforming our societal institutions. The current set up seems to constrain thinking into very narrow boundaries, within which people don't realize their thinking is constrained--they actually think they are thinking independently. Noam Chomsky talks about this.
But even Noam Chomsky falls into the same trap to some degree, though I must admit I don't know for sure what his hypothetical societal model is. Most people's thinking amounts to futzing with the parameters of a system that IMHO is fundamentally broken in many ways.
No, I don't want to see "obscene" concentrations of wealth. Looking at wealth concentration is like looking at the symptoms of a disease, never understanding its cause. What must be stopped is crony capitalism. The only obscene wealth is politically gained wealth.
I don't think Warren Buffet is unreasonably wealthy. I have done thought experiments several times about what might happen to the economy and vast numbers of people's jobs if just Warren Buffet were liquidated in a short period of time. Try it some time. The results aren't pretty. In my view, most of Buffet's wealth represents competent stewardship of capital. It's not like he's got $50000000000 in cash lying in the bank doing nothing, and he's just going crazy with hookers and blow every day, spending it down.
Do I think the stupid and insanely complex tax rules that make it so that Buffet pays a lower tax rate than middle class people is a mistake that should be fixed? Certainly!
But I also know how that would take place the way things work now: Congress would pass some 2000 page bill with all sorts of evil riders, such as forcing ordinary middle class folks who want to someday retire in a foreign country to have to spend the rest of their lives on this Earth, no matter where they reside, sending in multiple forms to the.gov every year reporting on the whereabouts of every fucking penny in their name across the planet. And god knows what other horrors.
Most importantly, this bill would add another bunch of schedules, and a few hundred pages of instructions, etc. to the existing ridiculous tax code. Ie., these people simply cannot EVER consider the idea of just throwing most of the tax code away.
So I ask you, why not just do this to the tax code, which will fix all of this:
Whatever you earn in a year over the poverty level, pay 15%. Done. Or even to offer good will to folks of leftist persuasion, fuck it how about 2x the poverty level? As for the 15% (negotiable, within reason, but NOT progressive--that is socially divisive), no matter what kind of earnings it is: job income, interest, dividends, capital gains--just add it all up and enter into a box on the single page tax form. Pay 15% of that. Maybe things would be a little more complicated for businesses, but if I were the libertarian dictator (funny, huh?) I'd put in Constitutional limits to the size of the tax reporting obligation. Two pages max for businesses. And about 3 blanks to fill in for individuals. If those fuckwits in Congress tried to mess it up again, they'd be banished from public service for life.
What is wrong with this? Can you imagine what benefits would result if we could simply do away with this bullshit overnight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for minimum wage, it should be eliminated. What right has anyone to inflict violent coercive force on a human being to prevent them from selling what may be the only thing they have of value for a price they deem to be worthwhile?
You do understand of course that the flip side of telling businesses "you MUST pay at least $20/hr (with threat of fines and/or imprisonment)" is that you are also telling ordinary human beings who should have the fundamental human ri
Sounds reasonable to me. Loaning people money isn't a good idea. Friends don't enable friends to get into debt, especially debt that's likely to destroy a friendship. And by paying for meals, they are giving you a little chance to save some money, which if it becomes a habit, makes borrowing money unnecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you don't understand the real purpose of police.
There is something very much wrong with it, if it is an individual's choice. We'll have none of that!
Or maybe that means they will be cheaper, to account for the probable higher required replacement frequency. Or maybe they will fail, and learn from it, adjust, and succeed? Ie., why be negative about something positive? What are you, a battery?
Care to elaborate further?
"It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops."
Locked up guns are as good as no guns, when there's an active shooter, don't you think?
That's the whole point, that even military officers were prohibited from carrying side arms or other guns in a usable manner while on active duty domestically.
Yes, but it's not stupid in the context of mission accomplished.
Which is more than can be said for the real stupid of serially laying waste to multiple predominantly Muslim nations, followed by permitting an unrestricted flow of migrants and refugees from those same nations into the western nations that collectively committed this serial crime.
The left cries "racism" if you propose not letting the refugees in.
The right (and left) cries "more war" in response to every catastrophe resulting from the prior interventionist war.
We are more committed to our ideologies than we are to the survival of our own nations. Ironically, we have a lot more in common with the terrorists than we realize.
"The refugees would be the dumbest way to move them. They will be watched, suspected, and scrutinized."
WTF are you talking about? The EU rules allow anyone who lands on their shores to be let in and given public assistance. There is no scrutiny at all.
Gun safety rules demand strict "muzzle discipline." A gun must be kept pointed away from anyone, regardless of being holstered, safety on, round in chamber, etc. So if someone asked me to take off a CCW because somehow my movement was making it point at them, I'd do it, or find a better way to holster so the gun doesn't point at people when I'm doing whatever. Yes, it's extremely unlikely to go off. But with safety issues, there is also the consequence side of the equation. The consequence of a gun accident is unacceptable.
That's fine for Muslim countries. But not western ones.
But why keep them? That is what is so insane about all of this. We keep wanting to fight them, at the same time as letting them in to our fucking countries. Kick them out! And keep them out. Then leave their fucking countries alone. Why is this so impossible for people to figure out? There are 2 choices, and only two choices:
1. Exterminate every Muslim (if you want to solve the problem, while simultaneously proving ourselves even worse barbarians)
2. Separate the west from Islam (if you want to solve the problem with the sincere intention of minimizing violence in general)
The following is not a choice that will work, as it is what we have been doing, and it's not working:
3. Fight Muslims in Muslim nations, and let more Muslims into western nations. (more of the same)
Guess which one we are going to choose?
Correct. Complex societal dynamics are at play.
"The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon."
It's not that simple. If the proportion of those who want Sharia reaches critical mass in any given pocket of highly concentrated Muslims, then Sharia law it will be. And it will stay unless the French government is willing to put it down, and keep it down. Otherwise such pockets will be cancers that will continue to grow.
Correct. They are a pre-industrial non-civilization. They are no threat at all. Unless we just say "come on over!"
I recall all the "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over there," talk.
So what do we do? Fight them over there (which pisses them off) AND let them come over here!
The situation is so hopeless, and rationality so far removed from the picture, that sane people should probably just ignore it. There is nothing that can be done to fix stupid.
They don't need much in the way of weapons and tech. if we are simply stupid. So far, we are acting so stupid that if we continue at it, the victory of ISIS is a foregone conclusion.
"On the other hand, we could to be more specific and blame those individuals who are actually committing atrocities."
Right, because these atrocities occur in a vacuum, with no cause, certainly nothing at all to do with Islam, right?
Disingenuous as always, the left is.
"Liberals" in this context constitutes that group of people who, in order to suppress rational discourse, will call anyone "Islamophobe" or "racist" who dares to rationally condemn Islam for what it is--a mass popular delusion with a propensity to make its followers turn to violence to spread Islam and dish out retribution.
"Liberals" are also those who think that we should be nice to Muslims and just let them enter our nations unrestricted.
P.S. This in no way implies that I support any aspect of US foreign policy or similar policies of other western powers.
Attacks are NOT justified because someone else attacked someone else in the past. But are attacks justified when someone is attacking someone else in the present?
"Waking up" presumes rationality may prevail. It will not. The same forces within the human mind that lead to the mass delusion of religion, are also what enables Marxism and its derivative ideologies to persist.
Yes, so if they are going to treat people like shit, then let them into their country, they are beyond stupid if they don't think this is the predictable outcome.
It is irrelevant if a bunch of irrelevant organizations condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists and repeat the tired lies that Islam doesn't teach violence. Because one can find countless madrassas that do teach violence. And there is no central authority to certify whose interpretation is right. So as long as the Quran retains the teachings that lead to this behavior, it is rational to condemn Islam as being a religion with a strong tendency to be interpreted in a way that leads to violence.
The scientific approach to this would be to formulate the hypothesis:
"Islam is religion of peace, no different than all the other major religions."
Now what does this hypothesis predict? That terrorism should be equally distributed among religious followers.
This is observably false, and in fact, the vast majority of barbaric terrorism and brutal treatment of human beings is concentrated among Muslims.
To continue to apologize for Islam and "believe" the validity of a false hypothesis is irrationality--it is the same mental defect that allows mass delusion in the form of religion to exist and persist in the first place.
Policies based on this irrationality will lead, predictably, to more terrorism and sorrow. Though you will refuse to admit it (predictably), your position is part of the cause of the terrorism.
If one were to understand the predictable consequences of attempting to bludgeon Muslim nations into conformance with western values by force, and allowing millions of unqualified Muslim migrants to enter western nations, and yet still persisted in maintaining these policies--such a person or government would be the epitome of hate and cruelty.
But ignorance is no excuse. The real haters and racists, are those who refuse to admit that Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization. Because through their policies of constant military intervention and inviting countless unqualified Muslim migrants into western nations, they share direct responsibility, along with Islam, for the tragic state of affairs we are enduring.
Maybe he's a Bonobo?
In other words, the only thing that we can say for sure about anything is what it does, not what it is.
Nothing must be allowed that isn't under strict government control.
I know some rich folks think like this, but their opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's including mine. One of the problems is a lack of original ideas for reforming our societal institutions. The current set up seems to constrain thinking into very narrow boundaries, within which people don't realize their thinking is constrained--they actually think they are thinking independently. Noam Chomsky talks about this.
But even Noam Chomsky falls into the same trap to some degree, though I must admit I don't know for sure what his hypothetical societal model is. Most people's thinking amounts to futzing with the parameters of a system that IMHO is fundamentally broken in many ways.
No, I don't want to see "obscene" concentrations of wealth. Looking at wealth concentration is like looking at the symptoms of a disease, never understanding its cause. What must be stopped is crony capitalism. The only obscene wealth is politically gained wealth.
I don't think Warren Buffet is unreasonably wealthy. I have done thought experiments several times about what might happen to the economy and vast numbers of people's jobs if just Warren Buffet were liquidated in a short period of time. Try it some time. The results aren't pretty. In my view, most of Buffet's wealth represents competent stewardship of capital. It's not like he's got $50000000000 in cash lying in the bank doing nothing, and he's just going crazy with hookers and blow every day, spending it down.
Do I think the stupid and insanely complex tax rules that make it so that Buffet pays a lower tax rate than middle class people is a mistake that should be fixed? Certainly!
But I also know how that would take place the way things work now: Congress would pass some 2000 page bill with all sorts of evil riders, such as forcing ordinary middle class folks who want to someday retire in a foreign country to have to spend the rest of their lives on this Earth, no matter where they reside, sending in multiple forms to the .gov every year reporting on the whereabouts of every fucking penny in their name across the planet. And god knows what other horrors.
Most importantly, this bill would add another bunch of schedules, and a few hundred pages of instructions, etc. to the existing ridiculous tax code. Ie., these people simply cannot EVER consider the idea of just throwing most of the tax code away.
So I ask you, why not just do this to the tax code, which will fix all of this:
Whatever you earn in a year over the poverty level, pay 15%. Done. Or even to offer good will to folks of leftist persuasion, fuck it how about 2x the poverty level? As for the 15% (negotiable, within reason, but NOT progressive--that is socially divisive), no matter what kind of earnings it is: job income, interest, dividends, capital gains--just add it all up and enter into a box on the single page tax form. Pay 15% of that. Maybe things would be a little more complicated for businesses, but if I were the libertarian dictator (funny, huh?) I'd put in Constitutional limits to the size of the tax reporting obligation. Two pages max for businesses. And about 3 blanks to fill in for individuals. If those fuckwits in Congress tried to mess it up again, they'd be banished from public service for life.
What is wrong with this? Can you imagine what benefits would result if we could simply do away with this bullshit overnight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for minimum wage, it should be eliminated. What right has anyone to inflict violent coercive force on a human being to prevent them from selling what may be the only thing they have of value for a price they deem to be worthwhile?
You do understand of course that the flip side of telling businesses "you MUST pay at least $20/hr (with threat of fines and/or imprisonment)" is that you are also telling ordinary human beings who should have the fundamental human ri
Sounds reasonable to me. Loaning people money isn't a good idea. Friends don't enable friends to get into debt, especially debt that's likely to destroy a friendship. And by paying for meals, they are giving you a little chance to save some money, which if it becomes a habit, makes borrowing money unnecessary.