1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
Actually there are many reasons other than gov't thinks it's OK to support a parent telling their child(ren) to not do it, health being first and foremost.
2. People smoke more of it.
Citation needed.
3. Whatever social consequences of pot-smoking occur and we all pay for them instead of putting that money toward other things, like space exploration or ocean renewal.
Oh, you mean, like the costs of putting people in prison and paying to support them for non-violent offences that don't cause any more harm to society than offences related to legal activities like alcohol?
4. I lose the ability to live in a society where pot-smoking is not normal. I may want this for moral reasons, ethical reasons, or even scientific reasons. But either way, I'm deprived.
Deprived of defining society for me, instead of with me... I say Hell Yeah to that. You don't get to choose for me when my choices don't bring harm to others!
You've fallen into a fallacy:
How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?
You're looking at a change in state of the law, not a change in state of society.
Either way, permission or denial, a change has been effected and that changes the overall experience of the society.
Calling it "freedom" (etc) is just a linguistic and political trope in this case, as it doesn't relate to the effect of what you're describing.
Permissiveness is not victimless. It is simply a change in status, much like denial. Thus, any condition is an imposition in effect.
Currently, our society has a bias in favor of permissiveness, using the "it's not a change to you" argument that you outlined above. However, this is fading, since people are seeing that all these permissive changes have long-term social consequences starting with the perception of approval.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
So we're talking about the forward progress of a free society; seriously, don't let the door hit you on the way out into your controlled, utopian society, I'll stick with allowing people to choose for themselves and their offspring when those choices don't adversely affect others.
I cannot speak for the GP author, but I would venture to guess that the implication was that the _media_ is less likely to report the prevention of the crime due to someone other than the perpetrator being in possession of a firearm than it is to sensationalize the tragic events that occur when said perp is not confronted with a similarly armed potential victim.
I couldn't agree more. The paper should justify itself.
If it can't, it should be held liable for the breach of privacy that it undertook. Just because a piece of information is public record does not imply that it is appropriate to publish it en mass.
I want to peacefully get my government to change laws which is why I vote and participate in the political process, BUT I also want the ability to exercise my Right granted by the Second Amendment so if I should need to protect myself and my family I am able (because the police aren't always quick to arrive, nor are they all the upstanding, moral types that most Anti-Gun people believe them to be) _and_ because I believe the Founders intended the US citizens to have the ability to be armed in order to push back against an increasingly tyrannical government should one develop (which I fear is actually happening before my eyes.)
Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.
We have met the enemy and he is me.
There fixed that for you.
If you really believe that criminals are going to abide by gun control laws, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. This perspective is a lot like the War on Drugs. Heroine and cocaine are illegal, right? So, by your logic, they aren't available on the street. How's that working out for us... oh yeah, about as well as Prohibition worked.
It's fair to say that those who freely throw around the word "sheeple" are unable to offer constructive criticism. This inability to think critically, or to even empathize with others who differ politically/philosophically, will inevitably lead to caricaturizing/demonizing broad swathes of the political and social landscape. When enough power is acquired, prepare your ass for acts of fascism from the very people who proclaimed to oppose it.
I use the word sheeple, but it's not because I lack empathy nor am I unable to think critically. I use the term to describe those who refuse to think for themselves, those who would prefer to go through life with blinders on believing that everyone around them has their best interests at heart. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with those whose opinions and viewpoints differ from my own; I'm quite happy to discuss with them and review my own opinions and viewpoints to see if I should adjust accordingly using any newly acquired information or perspectives.
You are correct; Critical thinking is the key... and if you (general) are unable to do that then you (general) deserve the label of 'sheeple'.
I'm curious as to what state in which you live? I thought there was a federal law that required a 3-day wait to actually receive the firearm... I know that I had to wait 3 days before I could complete the purchase (i.e. pick up my gun) even though I already had my FOID card in hand.
I know that the laws with respect to gun shows are different, but I also thought that you had to wait the 3 days with a private seller as well, that if you didn't the private seller was the one who was outside of the law by not enforcing the waiting period.
And to provide input to the topic:
Moved cities but not county a few months ago, hadn't updated DL yet. Drove to old town, no wait, fill-in-the-bubble paper ballot, attendant not allowed to touch my ballot I had to feed it into the scanner myself, received my "I Voted" sticker and off I went back to work.
I'd vote, but then I heard that a definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome each time.
Okay, so let's get this straight... you'll not be offering up anything resembling criticism or opinions of a political nature in the next 4 years. GREAT!
Thanks for playing; people like you are part of the reason this system doesn't work as well as it could.
Survival of the fittest. The government does not owe me or anyone else a single thing. Stay out of my business. I have been unemployed for 8 months without insurance and I do not blame anyone but myself. Stop being a leech on society and provide for yourself. I bet you believe that the government "owes" you a retirement also? If you do not save enough for your retirement, then you don't deserve to retire. The government does not owe you a retirement or social security. Start saving for your own damn retirement and give back your free obama phone.
You sound bitter; you should do something about that... that said FTFY.
Considering that I paid into the Social Security system my entire life, you're damn right I expect something back. And I get very offended when anyone suggests that I'm asking for a hand out; what I expect is that a system that I supported be sorted out so that I'm going to get back what I was 'promised' in the end.
Believe me if I could save for my retirement I would, but right now I'm too concerned with keeping a (now rented rather than owned) roof over myself and my child's head and food on our table. I'm struggling to survive, and all 'trickle-down' is doing for me is raining poo on my head, weighing me down further.
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Yet it's a common argument among addicts.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others
Nope, as nicotine is known to be addictive and cigarettes bad for your health. I can't say with 100% certainty that he wasn't addicted, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't speak out against his position.
Yes, it is a common deflection seen in any number of addictions. The difference, as I see it, is that the GGGP didn't want to quit permanently; he only intended to test himself, which he did. Addicts say "Never again" believing that they can achieve it and then go back again and again. That inability to stay away when the person really wants to do so is the very definition of addiction.
Test passed. Yes, I smoke now, because I like to smoke.
Uh huh, "Test passed". So you actively took up a habit again that is bad for your health, stinky, and expensive because you like it, but no sir, you are not addicted in any way.
I used to smoke a long time ago, but before I managed to quit permanently I went through several stints when I quit much like you did. Yet I kept going back to it, especially when hanging around other smokers. Your argument amounts to the trite, "I can quit anytime, but I don't want to."
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others; for some it may be accurate, for others it is most certainly not.
BTW: I quit smoking almost 3 years ago using an electronic cigarette. I've cut my nicotine intake by 75% in that 3 years, but I still would be ineligible for hire under the law at topic. The minimal amount of nicotine that I still consume will likely be the lowest my intake will ever be because I am one of those who has cognitive focal issues for which nicotine is proven to be effective at combating. And no, I'm not interested in subsidizing Big-Pharm and switching to the more socially-accepted "Here take this pill and you'll be all better" approach.
Am I addicted to nicotine? Yes, Sir, I am. Do I care? No, Sir, I don't, and it's none of your damn business.
Yeah the kid did wrong, but to ASSume he's a sociopath is just utter stupidity.
Making logical inferences from the, granted minimal, information available from this particular case and adding in the base knowledge available via psychology of sociopaths is not utter stupidity... ignoring the signs and allowing the potential for further harm to additional individuals would be.
"Messed up kid"s who send ashes and make references to relatives from Auschwitz are far more than "messed up"... I have to agree with the posit that this a potential-sociopath and worthy of watching _within_ the system, so that he can be further constrained should he devolve.
All the better if he's not a sociopath and has really only made a very, very stupid mistake.
I always solve tough math or engineering problems in the shower. Absolutely no joke.
Me too.
If I remember correctly, there is scientific basis for it based on the fact that a hot shower will cause your body to pull more blood volume to the core (and therefore the brain) generating higher levels of activity. I've solved some of my most challenging code/logic problems in the shower.
Although, I am a bit worried about what this will do to gummy worm prices.
I assume they're getting gummy worms cheap from some other process that would be disposing of them, perhaps surplus or stale. Competing with retail would, I imagine, be ruinously expensive.
The gummy worms themselves start as corn, via corn syrup. If corn is going up, eventually the gummy worms are going to be more expensive as well. There may just be some lag time as the price increases work their way through the system. (Gummy worms, being shelf stable, are probably more resistant to price shocks than cows are.)
When I was young, we raised day-old calves to approximately a year-old before selling them at auction. Part of their feed mix was stale/malformed gummy candies from the local candy factory. Dad doesn't that any more (most likely from risk of CJD), but during that time period CJD wasn't a concern here in the US. And yes, he did it was because it was more cost effective.
You've nailed it on the head... they would be discarded otherwise, and they're made from the same corn sugars that the cows would get from corn.
I'm an American and I love food. I eat a wide variety of plants and animals and, yes, I do often have a problem with eating too much of it. But I do have taste buds, I do appreciate quality food, and I'm capable of both eating and differentiating between food at the top AND the bottom of the food quality scale.
Generalizations like this, especially in such heated terms, really do nothing for meaningful discussion. Then again, it's pretty clear from the tone of your comment that you're not interested in discussion. You're interested in being superior to everyone else. Good job. Work on your grammar and sentence structure a bit and maybe someday you'll actually impress upon someone that you are superior.
Don't forget the drought's effect on the availability of hay for cattle feed as well.
My father told me that prices have tripled and he's having to go farther and farther away to get what he needs to feed his livestock (which are given neither antibiotics nor hormones and are _darn_ tasty... I usually don't buy meat from the store; it comes from a farm I know and love.)
tx is a medical abbreviation for treatment; just as rx is an abbreviation for a prescription medication.
Although I will agree that I want my doctor held to strict medical standards, if I am in a terminal situation and there's an experimental tx out there, I want my doctor to be able to go through the pros and cons with me so that _we_ are able to make as informed a decision as to my care as is possible.
The FDA has too much history of protecting the pharma companies rather than their actual customers, the patients (drug) and consumers (food).
As someone who hasn't smoked for more than 2.5 years thanks to electronic cigarettes that the FDA fought tooth and nail to ban, my sentiments toward the FDA are that they can get the frack off my lawn!!
So what implications does this have for proprietary mobile browsers? Companies can suddenly decide, 'fuck it, I'll just charge them more for not using my browser of choice'?
Whilst nobody cares about IE7, the wider implications of this are potentially pretty onerous.
The wider implication as I see it is as people are economically encouraged to use standards-compliant browsers, companies are economically encouraged to produce them.
If the surcharge is truly based on support for non-standards-compliant browsers, it shouldn't affect only IE7/M$. For Kogan to point directly to IE7 is a pretty good PR stunt though.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh ... we've become the land of the Sneetches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3yJomUhs0g
Take a look at kajeet.com. The phones are full price, but the plans are quite reasonable. They have _excellent_ parental controls.
Actually it says the DNA is from the baby not from the partner, an even more important distinction.
Let's look at marijuana.
1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
Actually there are many reasons other than gov't thinks it's OK to support a parent telling their child(ren) to not do it, health being first and foremost.
2. People smoke more of it.
Citation needed.
3. Whatever social consequences of pot-smoking occur and we all pay for them instead of putting that money toward other things, like space exploration or ocean renewal.
Oh, you mean, like the costs of putting people in prison and paying to support them for non-violent offences that don't cause any more harm to society than offences related to legal activities like alcohol?
4. I lose the ability to live in a society where pot-smoking is not normal. I may want this for moral reasons, ethical reasons, or even scientific reasons. But either way, I'm deprived.
Deprived of defining society for me, instead of with me ... I say Hell Yeah to that. You don't get to choose for me when my choices don't bring harm to others!
You've fallen into a fallacy:
You're looking at a change in state of the law, not a change in state of society.
Either way, permission or denial, a change has been effected and that changes the overall experience of the society.
Calling it "freedom" (etc) is just a linguistic and political trope in this case, as it doesn't relate to the effect of what you're describing.
Permissiveness is not victimless. It is simply a change in status, much like denial. Thus, any condition is an imposition in effect.
Currently, our society has a bias in favor of permissiveness, using the "it's not a change to you" argument that you outlined above. However, this is fading, since people are seeing that all these permissive changes have long-term social consequences starting with the perception of approval.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
So we're talking about the forward progress of a free society; seriously, don't let the door hit you on the way out into your controlled, utopian society, I'll stick with allowing people to choose for themselves and their offspring when those choices don't adversely affect others.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
I cannot speak for the GP author, but I would venture to guess that the implication was that the _media_ is less likely to report the prevention of the crime due to someone other than the perpetrator being in possession of a firearm than it is to sensationalize the tragic events that occur when said perp is not confronted with a similarly armed potential victim.
So did you post AC because you outright plagiarized this material from John Noveske's last FB post before being killed in a car accident?
If it can't, it should be held liable for the breach of privacy that it undertook. Just because a piece of information is public record does not imply that it is appropriate to publish it en mass.
I want to peacefully get my government to change laws which is why I vote and participate in the political process, BUT I also want the ability to exercise my Right granted by the Second Amendment so if I should need to protect myself and my family I am able (because the police aren't always quick to arrive, nor are they all the upstanding, moral types that most Anti-Gun people believe them to be) _and_ because I believe the Founders intended the US citizens to have the ability to be armed in order to push back against an increasingly tyrannical government should one develop (which I fear is actually happening before my eyes.)
Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.
We have met the enemy and he is me.
There fixed that for you.
If you really believe that criminals are going to abide by gun control laws, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. This perspective is a lot like the War on Drugs. Heroine and cocaine are illegal, right? So, by your logic, they aren't available on the street. How's that working out for us ... oh yeah, about as well as Prohibition worked.
It's fair to say that those who freely throw around the word "sheeple" are unable to offer constructive criticism. This inability to think critically, or to even empathize with others who differ politically/philosophically, will inevitably lead to caricaturizing/demonizing broad swathes of the political and social landscape. When enough power is acquired, prepare your ass for acts of fascism from the very people who proclaimed to oppose it.
I use the word sheeple, but it's not because I lack empathy nor am I unable to think critically. I use the term to describe those who refuse to think for themselves, those who would prefer to go through life with blinders on believing that everyone around them has their best interests at heart. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with those whose opinions and viewpoints differ from my own; I'm quite happy to discuss with them and review my own opinions and viewpoints to see if I should adjust accordingly using any newly acquired information or perspectives.
You are correct; Critical thinking is the key ... and if you (general) are unable to do that then you (general) deserve the label of 'sheeple'.
I'm curious as to what state in which you live? I thought there was a federal law that required a 3-day wait to actually receive the firearm ... I know that I had to wait 3 days before I could complete the purchase (i.e. pick up my gun) even though I already had my FOID card in hand.
I know that the laws with respect to gun shows are different, but I also thought that you had to wait the 3 days with a private seller as well, that if you didn't the private seller was the one who was outside of the law by not enforcing the waiting period.
And to provide input to the topic: Moved cities but not county a few months ago, hadn't updated DL yet. Drove to old town, no wait, fill-in-the-bubble paper ballot, attendant not allowed to touch my ballot I had to feed it into the scanner myself, received my "I Voted" sticker and off I went back to work.
I'd vote, but then I heard that a definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome each time.
Okay, so let's get this straight ... you'll not be offering up anything resembling criticism or opinions of a political nature in the next 4 years. GREAT!
Thanks for playing; people like you are part of the reason this system doesn't work as well as it could.
FTFY
Survival of the fittest. The government does not owe me or anyone else a single thing. Stay out of my business. I have been unemployed for 8 months without insurance and I do not blame anyone but myself. Stop being a leech on society and provide for yourself. I bet you believe that the government "owes" you a retirement also? If you do not save enough for your retirement, then you don't deserve to retire. The government does not owe you a retirement or social security. Start saving for your own damn retirement and give back your free obama phone.
You sound bitter; you should do something about that ... that said FTFY.
Considering that I paid into the Social Security system my entire life, you're damn right I expect something back. And I get very offended when anyone suggests that I'm asking for a hand out; what I expect is that a system that I supported be sorted out so that I'm going to get back what I was 'promised' in the end.
Believe me if I could save for my retirement I would, but right now I'm too concerned with keeping a (now rented rather than owned) roof over myself and my child's head and food on our table. I'm struggling to survive, and all 'trickle-down' is doing for me is raining poo on my head, weighing me down further.
Again, FTFY.
Serious question: if you are registered as Independent you have the opportunity to vote in either (or both) primary elections, correct?
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Yet it's a common argument among addicts.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others
Nope, as nicotine is known to be addictive and cigarettes bad for your health. I can't say with 100% certainty that he wasn't addicted, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't speak out against his position.
Yes, it is a common deflection seen in any number of addictions. The difference, as I see it, is that the GGGP didn't want to quit permanently; he only intended to test himself, which he did. Addicts say "Never again" believing that they can achieve it and then go back again and again. That inability to stay away when the person really wants to do so is the very definition of addiction.
Test passed. Yes, I smoke now, because I like to smoke.
Uh huh, "Test passed". So you actively took up a habit again that is bad for your health, stinky, and expensive because you like it, but no sir, you are not addicted in any way.
I used to smoke a long time ago, but before I managed to quit permanently I went through several stints when I quit much like you did. Yet I kept going back to it, especially when hanging around other smokers. Your argument amounts to the trite, "I can quit anytime, but I don't want to."
And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.
Please stop projecting your addiction onto others; for some it may be accurate, for others it is most certainly not.
BTW: I quit smoking almost 3 years ago using an electronic cigarette. I've cut my nicotine intake by 75% in that 3 years, but I still would be ineligible for hire under the law at topic. The minimal amount of nicotine that I still consume will likely be the lowest my intake will ever be because I am one of those who has cognitive focal issues for which nicotine is proven to be effective at combating. And no, I'm not interested in subsidizing Big-Pharm and switching to the more socially-accepted "Here take this pill and you'll be all better" approach.
Am I addicted to nicotine? Yes, Sir, I am. Do I care? No, Sir, I don't, and it's none of your damn business.
Yeah the kid did wrong, but to ASSume he's a sociopath is just utter stupidity.
Making logical inferences from the, granted minimal, information available from this particular case and adding in the base knowledge available via psychology of sociopaths is not utter stupidity ... ignoring the signs and allowing the potential for further harm to additional individuals would be.
"Messed up kid"s who send ashes and make references to relatives from Auschwitz are far more than "messed up" ... I have to agree with the posit that this a potential-sociopath and worthy of watching _within_ the system, so that he can be further constrained should he devolve.
All the better if he's not a sociopath and has really only made a very, very stupid mistake.
I always solve tough math or engineering problems in the shower. Absolutely no joke.
Me too.
If I remember correctly, there is scientific basis for it based on the fact that a hot shower will cause your body to pull more blood volume to the core (and therefore the brain) generating higher levels of activity. I've solved some of my most challenging code/logic problems in the shower.
Although, I am a bit worried about what this will do to gummy worm prices.
I assume they're getting gummy worms cheap from some other process that would be disposing of them, perhaps surplus or stale. Competing with retail would, I imagine, be ruinously expensive.
The gummy worms themselves start as corn, via corn syrup. If corn is going up, eventually the gummy worms are going to be more expensive as well. There may just be some lag time as the price increases work their way through the system. (Gummy worms, being shelf stable, are probably more resistant to price shocks than cows are.)
When I was young, we raised day-old calves to approximately a year-old before selling them at auction. Part of their feed mix was stale/malformed gummy candies from the local candy factory. Dad doesn't that any more (most likely from risk of CJD), but during that time period CJD wasn't a concern here in the US. And yes, he did it was because it was more cost effective. You've nailed it on the head ... they would be discarded otherwise, and they're made from the same corn sugars that the cows would get from corn.
I'm an American and I love food. I eat a wide variety of plants and animals and, yes, I do often have a problem with eating too much of it. But I do have taste buds, I do appreciate quality food, and I'm capable of both eating and differentiating between food at the top AND the bottom of the food quality scale.
Generalizations like this, especially in such heated terms, really do nothing for meaningful discussion. Then again, it's pretty clear from the tone of your comment that you're not interested in discussion. You're interested in being superior to everyone else. Good job. Work on your grammar and sentence structure a bit and maybe someday you'll actually impress upon someone that you are superior.
If only I had mod points ...
Don't forget the drought's effect on the availability of hay for cattle feed as well. My father told me that prices have tripled and he's having to go farther and farther away to get what he needs to feed his livestock (which are given neither antibiotics nor hormones and are _darn_ tasty ... I usually don't buy meat from the store; it comes from a farm I know and love.)
tx is a medical abbreviation for treatment; just as rx is an abbreviation for a prescription medication. Although I will agree that I want my doctor held to strict medical standards, if I am in a terminal situation and there's an experimental tx out there, I want my doctor to be able to go through the pros and cons with me so that _we_ are able to make as informed a decision as to my care as is possible. The FDA has too much history of protecting the pharma companies rather than their actual customers, the patients (drug) and consumers (food). As someone who hasn't smoked for more than 2.5 years thanks to electronic cigarettes that the FDA fought tooth and nail to ban, my sentiments toward the FDA are that they can get the frack off my lawn!!
So what implications does this have for proprietary mobile browsers? Companies can suddenly decide, 'fuck it, I'll just charge them more for not using my browser of choice'? Whilst nobody cares about IE7, the wider implications of this are potentially pretty onerous.
The wider implication as I see it is as people are economically encouraged to use standards-compliant browsers, companies are economically encouraged to produce them. If the surcharge is truly based on support for non-standards-compliant browsers, it shouldn't affect only IE7/M$. For Kogan to point directly to IE7 is a pretty good PR stunt though.