As to my citations of statistics, you've missed my point. I just proved you don't understand how to read them. So talking further about statistics with you is pointless. You don't understand them. I am neither interested in your statistical citations absent some evidence that you know how to read them. And I won't waste my time citing them to you because you won't understand them.
As to my citation of a news source that showed a man that tried to mass shoot people was dropped thus negating all the death that would have happened had he not been stopped. I fail to see how killing the attacker immediately before he can cause much harm is not relevant to my point.
We are talking about technological solutions to the mass shooting issue. My solution prevents mass shootings by killing the person before they can even commit a mass shooting. You've as much as admitted it. Point me.
As to your citations of mass shooters, you don't get to call me kid if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that my point is that the guns literally prevent the mass shooting in the first place by killing the person before they can do it. This mental lapse on your part makes any pretense you have to being able to cite a statistic LAUGHABLE.
As to being ridiculous, you're the one that can't get his tiny mind around the idea that meeting a would be mass shooter with lethal force is pretty much the only known response used by anyone. That's what the police do. People like you will say violence doesn't solve anything... then call in the police to save you thus rendering yourself a hypocrite. Its comical.
I didn't say I wanted to wear armor. Quote where I said I wanted to wear armor... moron. What I said was that armor "IS" a technological solution to getting shot. And it is. And it is effective. And the people that get shot at for a living wear it. So you're stupid and I'm right. Again.
As to me not proposing a solution... I've proposed several. But if you are stupid... and you demonstrably are an idiot... then I can understand that as an idiot you would not be able to grasp simple concepts... by virtue of being stupid.
What has to be said is that you're doing very little besides outing yourself as an idiot and sperging about things you don't understand. I've challenged you to come up with a technological solution to the problem which is what the topic of the thread was about... and you seem mentally incapable of doing that. Sad.
You lose on basically every front here. The final one is that you're boring. You're not interesting. I gave you plenty of time to make any kind of coherent argument and you were unable to do it whilst at the same time just boring me with tedious proofs of your own stupidity.
So we're done here. Bother someone else with your idiocy. I've had my quota of your failure for this week.
Its not hard, chump. Stories like that all the time. Your entire position is irrational. The police that stop gunmen use guns. Why? Guns are the solution professionals use when they are called upon to solve this problem. And being that we are not a nation of peasants in the US... I see no reason why the common citizen can't defend himself with lethal force when some lunatic decides to win the Darwin awards.
As to me not respecting people that choose to be vulnerable... I'm not disrespecting them... the guy that wants to shoot them is disrespecting them. If they were armed then the shooter would respect them.
As to whether I want to wear armor... nope. But if you want a technological solution to getting shot... that is an option. Say what you like about my option... I have one. What is your technological solution? Got one? Or nothing?
As to AR15.com, no idea what you're talking about. I'm just a guy talking about technological solutions to problems. If you can't handle that then I guess I could proscribe you some medication that would solve your personality disorders. That's a technological solution to you being a tool.
As to your suggestion that I should have been disarmed... Come and take it, punk. Cowards like you whine to get braver people than yourself to do your bidding. Why don't you just come over here and take it. Come try it. And if the police take my gun away, you're just proving my point again. Because they're going to be armed won't they, retard? Why is that?
Because that is how you deal with armed people. You arm yourself and out number, over power, or outmaneuver them. Your idea is "what" exactly?
Give me YOUR technological solution. I have one. Do you have a solution or just more pathetic whining? I await more pathetic confessions of not having a point from you. Surprise me. Show me you can come up with an idea.
And if a mass shooter attacks people that are armed they are killed BEFORE they become mass shooters. So the only mass shooters you will cite are mass shooters that are shooting people that are unarmed because if they are armed they won't live long enough to become mass shooters.
You don't understand how statistics work. Causation and correlation. What you don't get is that mass shootings correlate with people that can't defend themselves because if they can the victims kill the perpetrator. Your list of mass shootings were all of victims that could not defend themselves either because they were children or because they were in a "gun free zone".
As to the guy that shot, he was not invading a police station. He invaded a gay bar full of gay people that were not armed. And that's why he was able to kill so many people. Imagine if he had invaded a police station. How long would he have lasted against the police if he invaded the police station and started shooting the place up? He MIGHT have killed one or two people. Then he would have gotten dropped. Why? Because his victims would be armed. So you're profoundly wrong.
As to evidence, I don't show evidence to spazing political zealots on the internet unless they agree to accept a certain type of information from a given source. People like you never admit they're wrong no matter what is cited unless they've already agreed to accept it. And then you just walk away and sulk. So... do you have a criteria you want to cite or are you going to keep it vague so you can arbitrarily reject any evidence that contradicts your nonsense? Because you're comically wrong... as in its now funny.
As to armor for civilians, now you're talking about the law. All you're saying here is that the government isn't letting people defend themselves. The issue is not the law but technology. I offered technological solutions that are used by professionals that deal with armed people they have to stop from killing people. You don't like that because you're a peasant that isn't comfortable with anyone else being able to defend themselves. And that's fine. The solution to your problem is to have more social classes. You can be a peasant. I'm not a peasant. You don't disarm me.
As to your hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil response to anything that contradicts you... sticking your fingers in your ears and singing LA LA LA LA LA LA is not actually a counter argument.
No, they have no fear in Europe when they do that because they are assumed unarmed. They break in with 5~6 people with clubs and knives. In the US, its typically 1~3 people that break in when they assume no one is home.
Mass shooters killing themselves is a product of mass shooters that engage people that are armed don't live long enough to be mass shooters. They get dropped before they kill enough people to be considered mass shooters.
Its ironic that you called your post statistics because you didn't consider how your stats would be biased.
As to armor, I'm giving you two technological things that professionals use to deal with this situation and which are statistically proven to be very effective. You don't like them? Buy running shoes, buy a potted plant disguise, or die like a rat.
I really don't care. My point was to talk about technological solutions that work as evidenced by the professional opinion and the statistics. You are personally free to do whatever.
No. Because that isn't how it works. Criminals in the US do not break into US homes when people are detected in the home. They do break into homes in Europe. They're called hot burglaries.
Increase the risk of engagement and the violence happens less. The criminal is the one taking the risk. Not the victim. The victim is merely defending themselves. What is more, avoiding an arms race is not an argument to be LESS well armed than your attacker.
As to explosives, possibly... However, the Draw Muhammad contest in Texas had 2 armed radical islamic people show up to kill people. They got instantly dropped by Texans with AR15s and no one else died.
Escalation is in the interest of the people with more resources. Collectively, we have more. An arms race serves our interests. What is more, look at these mass shootings. Now think again what happens when any reasonable portion of the victims are armed. It doesn't work.
What is more, your concession on explosives makes clear that you understand making things illegal doesn't really matter. Naturally high explosives are not something people can currently get their hands on. So... you're basically just conceding that you can't control illegal weapons but rather seem to think that restricting legal guns in the hands of victims is somehow in the interest of society. it isn't.
The common person wishes no violence upon anyone else. Arming them merely gives them an opportunity to defend themselves.
As to accidental deaths, I'm as worried about that as you are about car accidents caused by stop and go traffic which are themselves made worse by the automatic transmission.
Tell you what, agree to ban the automatic transmission right now or your position is profoundly hypocritical.
Let us not conflate deaths by accident with deaths by violence. Its like comparing deaths by heart disease to deaths by war. Its a nonsense.
if you want a technological solution... one accessible right now is guns and body armor. What technology do the police or military use to deal with guns? Words? Education? Do they offer the crazed gunman money?
Guns to kill or threaten the shooter... armor and tactics to avoid being injured while the deed is done.
Here someone will say "but I want the world to be full of rainbows and unicorns"... Childish.
Consider the numbers. The vast majority of the population is peaceful, law abiding, and has a strong interest in law and order. What is more... anyone will act in what they see as their self interest to defend themselves.
Consider that the error is that we haven't gone 180 degrees and encouraged MORE guns.
Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability invites attack. This is a well established and accepted strategic and tactical concept in war.
Look weak and you'll get hit. Look strong and you'll be avoided. If you WANT to be attacked in war, the best thing to do is to LOOK weak by hiding your strength. That is the nature of a trap in war. You trick the enemy into a miscalculation and destroy them. The point being... again... weakness invites attack.
If you wish to NOT be attacked... do not allow the enemy to think you are weak... either by not appearing weak or by actually being able to respond forcefully.
I'm sure I'm going to get statements like "typical american" or something equally infantile.
We'll see if any one has a substantive response to my point. I expect nothing but cowardly downvotes and idiotic insults from ACs without a hint of an argument.
Dying breed? Says what? Look at Europe. Look at the various socialist failed states around the world.
If I'm a dying breed, then you're a still born breed. You have no future. Every society you take control of you destroy. And what is left when you've left the population hungry, broken, and desperate?
Idiots like you turn stable republics into banana republics and banana republics breed dictators and kings.
You're a peasant wears your own chains in your mind.
Right wing am I?
What does left wing mean? What does right wing mean?
Left and right go back to the French revolution and they really have very little meaning outside of that context.
The right for example suggests a belief that kings and the clergy should control all social and governmental affairs. That democracy should not exist. That republics should not exist. That free speech should not exist. That the people have no rights not granted to them by the elites.
Where as the left historically believed in meritocracy. It believed in democracy. It believed in freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom - Period.
Who sounds more like the left and right these says you deluded peon?
I reject both the right and the left as labels because neither one is descriptive of anything beyond mindless tribalism or Marxists masquerading as enlightenment era freedom fighters.
The entire sick stack of shit is coming down. You've finally reached your peter point. You've risen to the limit of your incompetence. And its coming down. No amount of denial is going to stop it.
You're like a dying star... you burned the sweet hydrogen... you burned the oxygen and the carbon... you're down to iron.
Its nova or brown out time. Its heads I win or tails you lose. The world belongs to those that can see it. You're blind.
Just the regressive left. Their narrative is collapsing and they're trying to suppress, spin, and then gaslight their way out of one fuck up after another.
PC culture is collapsing. The foundations of their social power... the bribery and extortion are losing their power. The ability to control media choke points to control the message is going away.
By all means inevitable down voters... Vote away. I'm not saying this to get up voted or even to get noticed by anyone but you. You know I'm right. Try to put Pandora back in the box.
This incident in Florida is just one more data point in a cluster of failure. And the pathetic attempt to spin it by those that would rather their society die than lose power... Well, its all on display. Not everyone sees every incident of it. But everyone has seen you do it at least once by now. And many have seen it done many times.
Deny it. Spin it. Gaslight it.
Then when all of that has failed, you're going to accept it because we're not giving you a choice this time. This sort of nonsense was tolerated in the past because it was survivable. This sort of stupidity on display is an existential threat to our civilization.
Mexico is best served by a strong United States. The wall probably won't be built whatever trump wants. And even if it is, it will hurt the cartels more than anything which is in mexico's interest if they'll bother taking their heads out of their asses for five seconds.
As to SK and Japan, I believe all he was saying there was that these countries have to chip in their fair share of the defense budget. Given that the alternative is that we reduce our contribution to their area... being offered to keep the US in the region at an affordable price is a net gain at least in the sense of options. The Obama administration is rolling back support for allies around the world. That's just a fact. Defense budgets are getting cut, troop numbers are going down, and the relevance of US power in various places is being rolled back. If the allies in the regions want the US to maintain support then asking them to bear a reasonable burden for American blood and treasure is not unreasonable. And absent such a deal... the alternative is not the status quo. The status quo is not being maintained regardless.
As to China, their economy is tanking because our purchases are tanking. They're bad trade partners because they want to take over rather than trade. And that has poisoned trade relations to a certain extent. Like Mexico, their best economic future is with a strong United States so they have trade partners that can satisfy their demands. If the US continues to go into decline then china is fucked.
As to Muslims, if the islamization issue is not rolled back then they won't have any place worth visiting. Look at what is happening in Europe. Ignoring this issue is not in their interest. Unless the goal is to destroy the west. In which case, fuck them.
As to Trump University, one can much more easily make arguments against the Clinton's many foundations for which documents keep getting lost and government officials need to keep pleading the fifth. Honestly, the smear campaign on trump isn't going to be effective because for anything you say about him you can say two things about Hillary.
As to his ex wife, she's on record of saying the interviewer for the paper misrepresented her statement and lied.
This is precisely why you're having a hard time with trump. You need to step your game up. You're not arguing against the hapless Bushes.
To the contrary, you're not very good at this... ACs cannot presume to be individually identified and are therefore assumed the same person or different people at the discretion of people that actually login.
That would be me.
So "YOU" said that and then "YOU" contradicted yourself.
You can avoid this situation by logging in. Absent that, what I see is "NAME X said Y" and "NAME X said Y2".
They don't appear to be especially eager to join. You say they'd be better off... given that they're doing as well or better than anyone in the EU it begs the question of how you come to this conclusion that they'd be doing EVEN better? Membership in the EU grants lower trade barriers to trade with EU members but it also comes with a lot of burdens which when added up don't especially justify the marginal benefit of lower tariffs.
The EU is doomed. It could have worked if the people that set it up had had any respect for the democratic process or weren't such corrupt kleptocrates. But they didn't and they are.
Consider this, EU bureaucrats are except from estate taxes. Can you think of anyone else in the EU that is exempt from estate taxes?
The entire thing is a farce. And one way or another, it is coming down. The EU is basically bribing media outlets throughout Europe to push a pro EU message. They're using government funds to send people door to door. They're piling one scare tactic on top of another.
And its failing. And even if it succeeded which it appears it will not... the whole thing would come down anyway because the idiots that run the EU don't even know why they've gotten themselves into political trouble in the first place as evidenced by them doubling down on the same mistakes AFTER everyone else knew it was time to stop.
You said this: " I don't think your own lack of being able to draw obvious conclusions from simple statements is Hawking's problem. " You then respond to me with "YOUR method, as demonstrated in your conduct, is to shame and disparage others"
Logic isn't for everyone. If you don't want to be rational, then that's basically your choice. I mean, some people like to just make statements and then raise their eyebrows provocatively as if they actually made a point.
Your method is generally effective in politics. Mine functions in situations where being right matters.
Its the old sophistry vs stoicism thing. Both approaches are empirically effective in given situations for given definitions of "effective".
The point of which was to demonstrate that your pathetic attempt to browbeat was comically ineffective. Try again.
No really. Actually try again. This time engaging with my point. Hawking is basically just repeating some talking points. Which is fine. The guy has basically been amusing himself with the media for decades because there really isn't a lot else he can do with his life. His contributions to physics are decades in the past. And even if they were current and they're not... having really interesting insights into physics is not the same thing as having interesting insights into politics or geopolitics or macro economics. It makes about as much sense as listening with baited breath to the opinion of someone that won a literature prize as they give their opinions about physics. By all means... "listen" but keep in mind that what they won the award for was something else.
The above should be obvious conclusions YOU should have drawn. But naturally such references are only applied to people like "me" where as you just get to fire shots from the peanut gallery.
My point is that the doomsaying on people leaving the EU isn't especially rational. There are a lot of countries outside the EU that do just fine.
Pro EU people are saying things like "no one will trade with you"... which makes no sense because they trade with non-eu countries all the time. They're also saying stuff like "we'll have war again in europe if you leave the EU"... which also makes no sense because its NATO that keeps the lid on that and not the EU. Then there is the claim that "your economy will be terrible if you leave the EU" which again, there are countries outside the EU that have great economies IN EUROPE... so... why would the UK need that whilst Switzerland doesn't?
Most of what people are talking about with the EU is the shitty economy the UK had in the 1970s. However, most analysis of that economy show the problems were self inflicted rather than a product of not being in the EU. It was more a matter of post WW2 rationing and regulations on the UK economy continuing AFTER the war when prior to the war they had not been there. And those regulations retarded the British economy. If you want an economy from a given era... consider instituting the laws and taxes from that period whilst retiring all relevant laws NOT from that period.
If you create the same legal and economic framework then you have a good shot at producing the same economic dynamic.
Anyway, the anti brexit rhetoric has become laughable at this point. They're making some really silly predictions.
It would have to be substantiated. The Overton Window has been shifted quite a lot in the last couple generations and what is and is not considered acceptable is very much a subjective quality at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
So by this logic the japanese won WW2. This is weapons grade stupidity.
As to my citations of statistics, you've missed my point. I just proved you don't understand how to read them. So talking further about statistics with you is pointless. You don't understand them. I am neither interested in your statistical citations absent some evidence that you know how to read them. And I won't waste my time citing them to you because you won't understand them.
As to my citation of a news source that showed a man that tried to mass shoot people was dropped thus negating all the death that would have happened had he not been stopped. I fail to see how killing the attacker immediately before he can cause much harm is not relevant to my point.
We are talking about technological solutions to the mass shooting issue. My solution prevents mass shootings by killing the person before they can even commit a mass shooting. You've as much as admitted it. Point me.
As to your citations of mass shooters, you don't get to call me kid if you're so ignorant that you don't understand that my point is that the guns literally prevent the mass shooting in the first place by killing the person before they can do it. This mental lapse on your part makes any pretense you have to being able to cite a statistic LAUGHABLE.
As to being ridiculous, you're the one that can't get his tiny mind around the idea that meeting a would be mass shooter with lethal force is pretty much the only known response used by anyone. That's what the police do. People like you will say violence doesn't solve anything... then call in the police to save you thus rendering yourself a hypocrite. Its comical.
I didn't say I wanted to wear armor. Quote where I said I wanted to wear armor... moron. What I said was that armor "IS" a technological solution to getting shot. And it is. And it is effective. And the people that get shot at for a living wear it. So you're stupid and I'm right. Again.
As to me not proposing a solution... I've proposed several. But if you are stupid... and you demonstrably are an idiot... then I can understand that as an idiot you would not be able to grasp simple concepts... by virtue of being stupid.
What has to be said is that you're doing very little besides outing yourself as an idiot and sperging about things you don't understand. I've challenged you to come up with a technological solution to the problem which is what the topic of the thread was about... and you seem mentally incapable of doing that. Sad.
You lose on basically every front here. The final one is that you're boring. You're not interesting. I gave you plenty of time to make any kind of coherent argument and you were unable to do it whilst at the same time just boring me with tedious proofs of your own stupidity.
So we're done here. Bother someone else with your idiocy. I've had my quota of your failure for this week.
So an anti shark cage by your logic doesn't keep people safe from sharks because if you are in one then you don't ever get attacked by a shark.
You're officially too stupid to cite statistics. I'll ignore any further statistical argument from you.
As to mass shooters being dropped by people armed... here's one:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...
Its not hard, chump. Stories like that all the time. Your entire position is irrational. The police that stop gunmen use guns. Why? Guns are the solution professionals use when they are called upon to solve this problem. And being that we are not a nation of peasants in the US... I see no reason why the common citizen can't defend himself with lethal force when some lunatic decides to win the Darwin awards.
As to me not respecting people that choose to be vulnerable... I'm not disrespecting them... the guy that wants to shoot them is disrespecting them. If they were armed then the shooter would respect them.
As to whether I want to wear armor... nope. But if you want a technological solution to getting shot... that is an option. Say what you like about my option... I have one. What is your technological solution? Got one? Or nothing?
As to AR15.com, no idea what you're talking about. I'm just a guy talking about technological solutions to problems. If you can't handle that then I guess I could proscribe you some medication that would solve your personality disorders. That's a technological solution to you being a tool.
As to your suggestion that I should have been disarmed... Come and take it, punk. Cowards like you whine to get braver people than yourself to do your bidding. Why don't you just come over here and take it. Come try it. And if the police take my gun away, you're just proving my point again. Because they're going to be armed won't they, retard? Why is that?
Because that is how you deal with armed people. You arm yourself and out number, over power, or outmaneuver them. Your idea is "what" exactly?
Give me YOUR technological solution. I have one. Do you have a solution or just more pathetic whining? I await more pathetic confessions of not having a point from you. Surprise me. Show me you can come up with an idea.
And if a mass shooter attacks people that are armed they are killed BEFORE they become mass shooters. So the only mass shooters you will cite are mass shooters that are shooting people that are unarmed because if they are armed they won't live long enough to become mass shooters.
You don't understand how statistics work. Causation and correlation. What you don't get is that mass shootings correlate with people that can't defend themselves because if they can the victims kill the perpetrator. Your list of mass shootings were all of victims that could not defend themselves either because they were children or because they were in a "gun free zone".
As to the guy that shot, he was not invading a police station. He invaded a gay bar full of gay people that were not armed. And that's why he was able to kill so many people. Imagine if he had invaded a police station. How long would he have lasted against the police if he invaded the police station and started shooting the place up? He MIGHT have killed one or two people. Then he would have gotten dropped. Why? Because his victims would be armed. So you're profoundly wrong.
As to evidence, I don't show evidence to spazing political zealots on the internet unless they agree to accept a certain type of information from a given source. People like you never admit they're wrong no matter what is cited unless they've already agreed to accept it. And then you just walk away and sulk. So... do you have a criteria you want to cite or are you going to keep it vague so you can arbitrarily reject any evidence that contradicts your nonsense? Because you're comically wrong... as in its now funny.
As to armor for civilians, now you're talking about the law. All you're saying here is that the government isn't letting people defend themselves. The issue is not the law but technology. I offered technological solutions that are used by professionals that deal with armed people they have to stop from killing people. You don't like that because you're a peasant that isn't comfortable with anyone else being able to defend themselves. And that's fine. The solution to your problem is to have more social classes. You can be a peasant. I'm not a peasant. You don't disarm me.
As to your hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil response to anything that contradicts you... sticking your fingers in your ears and singing LA LA LA LA LA LA is not actually a counter argument.
No, they have no fear in Europe when they do that because they are assumed unarmed. They break in with 5~6 people with clubs and knives. In the US, its typically 1~3 people that break in when they assume no one is home.
Mass shooters killing themselves is a product of mass shooters that engage people that are armed don't live long enough to be mass shooters. They get dropped before they kill enough people to be considered mass shooters.
Its ironic that you called your post statistics because you didn't consider how your stats would be biased.
As to armor, I'm giving you two technological things that professionals use to deal with this situation and which are statistically proven to be very effective. You don't like them? Buy running shoes, buy a potted plant disguise, or die like a rat.
I really don't care. My point was to talk about technological solutions that work as evidenced by the professional opinion and the statistics. You are personally free to do whatever.
No. Because that isn't how it works. Criminals in the US do not break into US homes when people are detected in the home. They do break into homes in Europe. They're called hot burglaries.
Increase the risk of engagement and the violence happens less. The criminal is the one taking the risk. Not the victim. The victim is merely defending themselves. What is more, avoiding an arms race is not an argument to be LESS well armed than your attacker.
As to explosives, possibly... However, the Draw Muhammad contest in Texas had 2 armed radical islamic people show up to kill people. They got instantly dropped by Texans with AR15s and no one else died.
Escalation is in the interest of the people with more resources. Collectively, we have more. An arms race serves our interests. What is more, look at these mass shootings. Now think again what happens when any reasonable portion of the victims are armed. It doesn't work.
What is more, your concession on explosives makes clear that you understand making things illegal doesn't really matter. Naturally high explosives are not something people can currently get their hands on. So... you're basically just conceding that you can't control illegal weapons but rather seem to think that restricting legal guns in the hands of victims is somehow in the interest of society. it isn't.
The common person wishes no violence upon anyone else. Arming them merely gives them an opportunity to defend themselves.
As to accidental deaths, I'm as worried about that as you are about car accidents caused by stop and go traffic which are themselves made worse by the automatic transmission.
Tell you what, agree to ban the automatic transmission right now or your position is profoundly hypocritical.
Let us not conflate deaths by accident with deaths by violence. Its like comparing deaths by heart disease to deaths by war. Its a nonsense.
if you want a technological solution... one accessible right now is guns and body armor. What technology do the police or military use to deal with guns? Words? Education? Do they offer the crazed gunman money?
Guns to kill or threaten the shooter... armor and tactics to avoid being injured while the deed is done.
Here someone will say "but I want the world to be full of rainbows and unicorns"... Childish.
Consider the numbers. The vast majority of the population is peaceful, law abiding, and has a strong interest in law and order. What is more... anyone will act in what they see as their self interest to defend themselves.
Consider that the error is that we haven't gone 180 degrees and encouraged MORE guns.
Vulnerability or perceived vulnerability invites attack. This is a well established and accepted strategic and tactical concept in war.
Look weak and you'll get hit. Look strong and you'll be avoided. If you WANT to be attacked in war, the best thing to do is to LOOK weak by hiding your strength. That is the nature of a trap in war. You trick the enemy into a miscalculation and destroy them. The point being... again... weakness invites attack.
If you wish to NOT be attacked... do not allow the enemy to think you are weak... either by not appearing weak or by actually being able to respond forcefully.
I'm sure I'm going to get statements like "typical american" or something equally infantile.
We'll see if any one has a substantive response to my point. I expect nothing but cowardly downvotes and idiotic insults from ACs without a hint of an argument.
Dying breed? Says what? Look at Europe. Look at the various socialist failed states around the world.
If I'm a dying breed, then you're a still born breed. You have no future. Every society you take control of you destroy. And what is left when you've left the population hungry, broken, and desperate?
Idiots like you turn stable republics into banana republics and banana republics breed dictators and kings.
You're a peasant wears your own chains in your mind.
Right wing am I?
What does left wing mean?
What does right wing mean?
Left and right go back to the French revolution and they really have very little meaning outside of that context.
The right for example suggests a belief that kings and the clergy should control all social and governmental affairs. That democracy should not exist. That republics should not exist. That free speech should not exist. That the people have no rights not granted to them by the elites.
Where as the left historically believed in meritocracy. It believed in democracy. It believed in freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom - Period.
Who sounds more like the left and right these says you deluded peon?
I reject both the right and the left as labels because neither one is descriptive of anything beyond mindless tribalism or Marxists masquerading as enlightenment era freedom fighters.
The entire sick stack of shit is coming down. You've finally reached your peter point. You've risen to the limit of your incompetence. And its coming down. No amount of denial is going to stop it.
You're like a dying star... you burned the sweet hydrogen... you burned the oxygen and the carbon... you're down to iron.
Its nova or brown out time. Its heads I win or tails you lose. The world belongs to those that can see it. You're blind.
Just the regressive left. Their narrative is collapsing and they're trying to suppress, spin, and then gaslight their way out of one fuck up after another.
PC culture is collapsing. The foundations of their social power... the bribery and extortion are losing their power. The ability to control media choke points to control the message is going away.
By all means inevitable down voters... Vote away. I'm not saying this to get up voted or even to get noticed by anyone but you. You know I'm right. Try to put Pandora back in the box.
This incident in Florida is just one more data point in a cluster of failure. And the pathetic attempt to spin it by those that would rather their society die than lose power... Well, its all on display. Not everyone sees every incident of it. But everyone has seen you do it at least once by now. And many have seen it done many times.
Deny it. Spin it. Gaslight it.
Then when all of that has failed, you're going to accept it because we're not giving you a choice this time. This sort of nonsense was tolerated in the past because it was survivable. This sort of stupidity on display is an existential threat to our civilization.
Indisputable facts like your rampant autism?
Throw a question at me that isn't your whining about being an AC and we'll see where this goes.
The whining of ACs remains sweet music to my ears.
you didn't read what I said in the previous post. Read it again.
Increasing your autism level does not improve your argument. It merely reduces your ability to determine when you're being stupid.
Mexico is best served by a strong United States. The wall probably won't be built whatever trump wants. And even if it is, it will hurt the cartels more than anything which is in mexico's interest if they'll bother taking their heads out of their asses for five seconds.
As to SK and Japan, I believe all he was saying there was that these countries have to chip in their fair share of the defense budget. Given that the alternative is that we reduce our contribution to their area... being offered to keep the US in the region at an affordable price is a net gain at least in the sense of options. The Obama administration is rolling back support for allies around the world. That's just a fact. Defense budgets are getting cut, troop numbers are going down, and the relevance of US power in various places is being rolled back. If the allies in the regions want the US to maintain support then asking them to bear a reasonable burden for American blood and treasure is not unreasonable. And absent such a deal... the alternative is not the status quo. The status quo is not being maintained regardless.
As to China, their economy is tanking because our purchases are tanking. They're bad trade partners because they want to take over rather than trade. And that has poisoned trade relations to a certain extent. Like Mexico, their best economic future is with a strong United States so they have trade partners that can satisfy their demands. If the US continues to go into decline then china is fucked.
As to Muslims, if the islamization issue is not rolled back then they won't have any place worth visiting. Look at what is happening in Europe. Ignoring this issue is not in their interest. Unless the goal is to destroy the west. In which case, fuck them.
As to Trump University, one can much more easily make arguments against the Clinton's many foundations for which documents keep getting lost and government officials need to keep pleading the fifth. Honestly, the smear campaign on trump isn't going to be effective because for anything you say about him you can say two things about Hillary.
As to his ex wife, she's on record of saying the interviewer for the paper misrepresented her statement and lied.
This is precisely why you're having a hard time with trump. You need to step your game up. You're not arguing against the hapless Bushes.
Glad you agree with me.
... it would not need to force itself on users or be given away.
The insistence of MS that people upgrade pretty much speaks for itself.
No. It is not worth it. We wait for windows 11... even numbered OS's appear to be cursed.
What do you think you're talking about? You're all the same guy.
AC = AC. I'm not arguing with you on any other terms. Either login or accept that your cowardice has a price.
To the contrary, you're not very good at this... ACs cannot presume to be individually identified and are therefore assumed the same person or different people at the discretion of people that actually login.
That would be me.
So "YOU" said that and then "YOU" contradicted yourself.
You can avoid this situation by logging in. Absent that, what I see is "NAME X said Y" and "NAME X said Y2".
They don't appear to be especially eager to join. You say they'd be better off... given that they're doing as well or better than anyone in the EU it begs the question of how you come to this conclusion that they'd be doing EVEN better? Membership in the EU grants lower trade barriers to trade with EU members but it also comes with a lot of burdens which when added up don't especially justify the marginal benefit of lower tariffs.
The EU is doomed. It could have worked if the people that set it up had had any respect for the democratic process or weren't such corrupt kleptocrates. But they didn't and they are.
Consider this, EU bureaucrats are except from estate taxes. Can you think of anyone else in the EU that is exempt from estate taxes?
The entire thing is a farce. And one way or another, it is coming down. The EU is basically bribing media outlets throughout Europe to push a pro EU message. They're using government funds to send people door to door. They're piling one scare tactic on top of another.
And its failing. And even if it succeeded which it appears it will not... the whole thing would come down anyway because the idiots that run the EU don't even know why they've gotten themselves into political trouble in the first place as evidenced by them doubling down on the same mistakes AFTER everyone else knew it was time to stop.
Nice try.
You said this:
"
I don't think your own lack of being able to draw obvious conclusions from simple statements is Hawking's problem.
"
You then respond to me with "YOUR method, as demonstrated in your conduct, is to shame and disparage others"
Nope. You did it first. I just reciprocated.
Kill yourself.
Logic isn't for everyone. If you don't want to be rational, then that's basically your choice. I mean, some people like to just make statements and then raise their eyebrows provocatively as if they actually made a point.
Your method is generally effective in politics. Mine functions in situations where being right matters.
Its the old sophistry vs stoicism thing. Both approaches are empirically effective in given situations for given definitions of "effective".
The point of which was to demonstrate that your pathetic attempt to browbeat was comically ineffective. Try again.
No really. Actually try again. This time engaging with my point. Hawking is basically just repeating some talking points. Which is fine. The guy has basically been amusing himself with the media for decades because there really isn't a lot else he can do with his life. His contributions to physics are decades in the past. And even if they were current and they're not... having really interesting insights into physics is not the same thing as having interesting insights into politics or geopolitics or macro economics. It makes about as much sense as listening with baited breath to the opinion of someone that won a literature prize as they give their opinions about physics. By all means... "listen" but keep in mind that what they won the award for was something else.
The above should be obvious conclusions YOU should have drawn. But naturally such references are only applied to people like "me" where as you just get to fire shots from the peanut gallery.
My point is that the doomsaying on people leaving the EU isn't especially rational. There are a lot of countries outside the EU that do just fine.
Pro EU people are saying things like "no one will trade with you"... which makes no sense because they trade with non-eu countries all the time. They're also saying stuff like "we'll have war again in europe if you leave the EU"... which also makes no sense because its NATO that keeps the lid on that and not the EU. Then there is the claim that "your economy will be terrible if you leave the EU" which again, there are countries outside the EU that have great economies IN EUROPE... so... why would the UK need that whilst Switzerland doesn't?
Most of what people are talking about with the EU is the shitty economy the UK had in the 1970s. However, most analysis of that economy show the problems were self inflicted rather than a product of not being in the EU. It was more a matter of post WW2 rationing and regulations on the UK economy continuing AFTER the war when prior to the war they had not been there. And those regulations retarded the British economy. If you want an economy from a given era... consider instituting the laws and taxes from that period whilst retiring all relevant laws NOT from that period.
If you create the same legal and economic framework then you have a good shot at producing the same economic dynamic.
Anyway, the anti brexit rhetoric has become laughable at this point. They're making some really silly predictions.
Who gets screwed according to Trump and how? Please elaborate here. I haven't heard him saying he wants to screw anyone besides ISIS...
It would have to be substantiated. The Overton Window has been shifted quite a lot in the last couple generations and what is and is not considered acceptable is very much a subjective quality at this point.