No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim? I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it. The real question is are you willing to spend the time and energy to personally verify it? And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life? What authority are you willing to delegate to whom and on what conditions for trusting specific sources? When it comes to affecting your life I bet that you delegate that authority and trust very narrowly compared to delegating scientific authority and trust.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
Politics and specifically narrative is never as simple as physics. Because by their very nature deal with topics that you and I will not be informed to make any kind of decision yet we must have an opinion because democracy. The scientists that study clouds and atomic weights are the experts about those specific things and those facts require experts to verify and understand them.
Everything is easily obtained data if you spend time yet it is still contested. Did Trump call Mexicans rapists in his announcement speech? Who are you going to trust when have conflicting narratives? If you were a Mexican immigrant (legal), and you heard conflicting stories from CNN and Fox, who would you trust? Be afraid and vote to protect yourself just in case or nothing new continue on with life and nonchalant politics? That is very different than what the weather is. Even if it is factually inaccurate acting as if it was is still the rational choice.
Hold the phone. You responded to Archtech ( 159117 ) and I responded to you. I did not say "If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive." Although, I do agree with it because I did say "Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted." That includes self described "fact checkers".
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't? If I am interested in a topic I spend more time and energy to discern the truth from varying sources to come to some conclusion about the topic. If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted.
We sampled all rumor cascades investigated by six independent fact-checking organizations (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com) by parsing the title, body, and verdict (true, false, or mixed) of each rumor investigation reported on their websites and automatically collecting the cascades corresponding to those rumors on Twitter.
I didn't like the emotionally driven reaction policy after 9/11 as I don't like it now with Florida. If you didn't like that done after 9/11 but do it now then you are a hypocrite.
A grandstanding fact-deriding hypocrite. How admirable.
SJW are trying to create a new term to cover what "racism" used to mean when they redefined it to "power plus prejudice". "Colorism" is the new SJW scarlet letter. See how inclusive they are?
"There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them." Clinton campaign colluding with media to shut Sanders down and promote the pied piper Republicans is not a scandal? Showing the level of corruption that is normal for Clinton by hiring DWS after her disgraceful resignation that happened because of the unethical conduct uncovered from the emails, is not a scandal?
Wow, I guess if you change the definition, sure no "scandal". But for everyone else that was very unethical and scandalous. As far as I am aware pizzagate didn't damage Clinton because it was fake conspiracy with zero evidence. The other crap however haunted her, her campaign, and the DNC because there was evidence and Clinton flaunted it in everyone's face like hiring DWS.
Did the '911 was an inside job' damage Bush? Has there been any evidence that any conspiracy like pizzagate has hurt any politician to such an extent as to lose an election?
"dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage despite no real scandals"
Innocent emails about weddings and yoga cause damage?
If there was no scandal in the emails how would they have damaged Clinton? You can't have it both ways. Either the emails were damaging because scandal or the emails were innocent and not damaging. Pick one.
Whenever I see "may" or "could" language in headlines I automatically read them as "may not" or "could not". It doesn't change the accuracy of the title and I can quickly dismiss it because if I can negate the entire title without changing the meaning something is wrong and its not worth my time to click clickbait.
Do you think there should be limits on your self defense from any would be assailant by the government?
A gun is an equalizer and a deterrent. Grandma can defend herself from Bubba. Bubba has to think twice about an armed would-be victim. That will not happen with a knife or a phone call.
A gun is a tool. A tool which is violent by nature because we live in a violent world not a world of angels. Violence can come from many different places or people or institutions. Violence from the government. Violence from a mob or Violence from foreign would-be invaders. All have a common recourse of action and the gun has the infamy of equalizing any encounter. No standing army can hold America because Grandma can shoot Private Bubba.
I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one.
What is the punishment for a store-owner that sells a gun to someone that fails a background check?
people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights
We have had decades of compromise. Where do you think the existing gun laws came from? Guns have been apart of the US since the beginning. Violence has been declining to all time lows. If there has been an uptick mass shootings perhaps it is not the gun and more about society and the an underlying issue it is struggling with.
what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective?
I am not exactly sure what your asking but proper penalties for any agency that does not file the appropriate records to the appropriate bureaucracy that handles any requests for a background associated with such sales or any agency that fails to appropriately act on those records. Are you asking for what is a proper penalty, if we should have a penalty or who is liable for a penalty to incentivize proper record keeping? Or are you asking about auditing any process, agency, and transfers of liability to apply appropriate criminal charges in failure to follow the law?
A review of the process for submitting, maintaining, and requesting records for background checks would help in addressing the transfers of liability between the different government agencies and personnel. We do random "audits" for the TSA why not for the FBI for background checks.
I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
Hmmm. If only there were a way to classify drugs that the government and law makers could use as a starting point to address irresponsibility because it would be common sense to say X classification is potentially irresponsible. HMMMMMM. I WONDER WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE. So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
No no. even if that classification did exist better to have our own list because my super genius common sense says it would be easier to go through every drug and have redundant classification. Alcohol should be Super Common Sense Bad Drug #23432 because I don't like DEA and I wanna smoke pot!!!!!!!!
1) Yes because it is a constitutional right. I have the same thoughts on speech or any constitutional right. Everyone in America should be ALLOWED to say what they want and we need a special reason to DENY (gag orders).
2) The law should be well defined whenever it authorizes the government to restrict liberty.
3) It's up for law enforcement to follow through on any valid report and act appropriately for any infraction. Just as the courts only act when harm has been done the government only acts on reasonable reports. The government isn't free to take your rights without reason.
Personally, I don't care about what is easier for the government. I care about what is constitutional, moral. and what allows for the most freedom of the citizens.
Agreed. I think the point is that whatever shows up in the background check there should be some kind of Whole-Person concept much like we do with a security clearance. Spotting red flags is one part in determining the "whole person" as a risk to themselves or others.
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling? Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling? If the government classifies a drug should that classification be used in determining purchase of a gun? If there are problems with that classification process should that classification be ignored?
You say you want common sense laws and now you are going beyond common sense because you are now ignoring legal definitions to make a flippant point. Do you want to argue about which substance is "controlled" or do you want to discuss what is common sense gun law?
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/...
Do you consider this factual and trustworthy? If you were a layman and saw this, what would you think after that segment?
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim? I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it. The real question is are you willing to spend the time and energy to personally verify it? And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life? What authority are you willing to delegate to whom and on what conditions for trusting specific sources? When it comes to affecting your life I bet that you delegate that authority and trust very narrowly compared to delegating scientific authority and trust.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
Politics and specifically narrative is never as simple as physics. Because by their very nature deal with topics that you and I will not be informed to make any kind of decision yet we must have an opinion because democracy. The scientists that study clouds and atomic weights are the experts about those specific things and those facts require experts to verify and understand them.
Everything is easily obtained data if you spend time yet it is still contested. Did Trump call Mexicans rapists in his announcement speech? Who are you going to trust when have conflicting narratives? If you were a Mexican immigrant (legal), and you heard conflicting stories from CNN and Fox, who would you trust? Be afraid and vote to protect yourself just in case or nothing new continue on with life and nonchalant politics? That is very different than what the weather is. Even if it is factually inaccurate acting as if it was is still the rational choice.
Hold the phone. You responded to Archtech ( 159117 ) and I responded to you. I did not say "If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive." Although, I do agree with it because I did say "Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted." That includes self described "fact checkers".
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't? If I am interested in a topic I spend more time and energy to discern the truth from varying sources to come to some conclusion about the topic. If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted.
You can lie with facts.
We sampled all rumor cascades investigated by six independent fact-checking organizations (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com) by parsing the title, body, and verdict (true, false, or mixed) of each rumor investigation reported on their websites and automatically collecting the cascades corresponding to those rumors on Twitter.
I didn't like the emotionally driven reaction policy after 9/11 as I don't like it now with Florida. If you didn't like that done after 9/11 but do it now then you are a hypocrite.
A grandstanding fact-deriding hypocrite. How admirable.
Grandstanding on freshly dug graves to push your politics while bemoaning the ones with facts... How admirable.
Problematic shirts.
SJW are trying to create a new term to cover what "racism" used to mean when they redefined it to "power plus prejudice". "Colorism" is the new SJW scarlet letter. See how inclusive they are?
"There were no scandals but there were plenty of made up scandals to go along with them."
Clinton campaign colluding with media to shut Sanders down and promote the pied piper Republicans is not a scandal? Showing the level of corruption that is normal for Clinton by hiring DWS after her disgraceful resignation that happened because of the unethical conduct uncovered from the emails, is not a scandal?
Wow, I guess if you change the definition, sure no "scandal". But for everyone else that was very unethical and scandalous. As far as I am aware pizzagate didn't damage Clinton because it was fake conspiracy with zero evidence. The other crap however haunted her, her campaign, and the DNC because there was evidence and Clinton flaunted it in everyone's face like hiring DWS.
Did the '911 was an inside job' damage Bush? Has there been any evidence that any conspiracy like pizzagate has hurt any politician to such an extent as to lose an election?
"dripped out the emails to cause maximum damage despite no real scandals"
Innocent emails about weddings and yoga cause damage?
If there was no scandal in the emails how would they have damaged Clinton? You can't have it both ways. Either the emails were damaging because scandal or the emails were innocent and not damaging. Pick one.
played Sim City and thought it was a reality simulator.
Aliens won't come and destroy my lovely city? My whole life is a lie.
Chicken and waffles? Chicken and waffles.
Whenever I see "may" or "could" language in headlines I automatically read them as "may not" or "could not". It doesn't change the accuracy of the title and I can quickly dismiss it because if I can negate the entire title without changing the meaning something is wrong and its not worth my time to click clickbait.
Do you think there should be limits on your self defense from any would be assailant by the government?
A gun is an equalizer and a deterrent. Grandma can defend herself from Bubba. Bubba has to think twice about an armed would-be victim. That will not happen with a knife or a phone call.
A gun is a tool. A tool which is violent by nature because we live in a violent world not a world of angels. Violence can come from many different places or people or institutions. Violence from the government. Violence from a mob or Violence from foreign would-be invaders. All have a common recourse of action and the gun has the infamy of equalizing any encounter. No standing army can hold America because Grandma can shoot Private Bubba.
I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one.
What is the punishment for a store-owner that sells a gun to someone that fails a background check?
people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights
We have had decades of compromise. Where do you think the existing gun laws came from? Guns have been apart of the US since the beginning. Violence has been declining to all time lows. If there has been an uptick mass shootings perhaps it is not the gun and more about society and the an underlying issue it is struggling with.
Well it does count as "do something" that we hear so much demand for.
I am multiple people, yes.
what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective?
I am not exactly sure what your asking but proper penalties for any agency that does not file the appropriate records to the appropriate bureaucracy that handles any requests for a background associated with such sales or any agency that fails to appropriately act on those records. Are you asking for what is a proper penalty, if we should have a penalty or who is liable for a penalty to incentivize proper record keeping? Or are you asking about auditing any process, agency, and transfers of liability to apply appropriate criminal charges in failure to follow the law?
A review of the process for submitting, maintaining, and requesting records for background checks would help in addressing the transfers of liability between the different government agencies and personnel. We do random "audits" for the TSA why not for the FBI for background checks.
I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
Hmmm. If only there were a way to classify drugs that the government and law makers could use as a starting point to address irresponsibility because it would be common sense to say X classification is potentially irresponsible. HMMMMMM. I WONDER WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE. So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
No no. even if that classification did exist better to have our own list because my super genius common sense says it would be easier to go through every drug and have redundant classification. Alcohol should be Super Common Sense Bad Drug #23432 because I don't like DEA and I wanna smoke pot!!!!!!!!
1) Yes because it is a constitutional right. I have the same thoughts on speech or any constitutional right. Everyone in America should be ALLOWED to say what they want and we need a special reason to DENY (gag orders).
2) The law should be well defined whenever it authorizes the government to restrict liberty.
3) It's up for law enforcement to follow through on any valid report and act appropriately for any infraction. Just as the courts only act when harm has been done the government only acts on reasonable reports. The government isn't free to take your rights without reason.
Personally, I don't care about what is easier for the government. I care about what is constitutional, moral. and what allows for the most freedom of the citizens.
Agreed. I think the point is that whatever shows up in the background check there should be some kind of Whole-Person concept much like we do with a security clearance. Spotting red flags is one part in determining the "whole person" as a risk to themselves or others.
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
If the government classifies a drug should that classification be used in determining purchase of a gun?
If there are problems with that classification process should that classification be ignored?
https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/c...
You are not making a point. You are being pedantic. It's annoying. I am done.
-.- ... What is a controlled substance?
You say you want common sense laws and now you are going beyond common sense because you are now ignoring legal definitions to make a flippant point. Do you want to argue about which substance is "controlled" or do you want to discuss what is common sense gun law?