That is not at all the mentality of a daily carry individual, it's your projection of one. It's a culture 'change' that exists only in your head, and the strawmen you argue with.
Violence rates are directly related to the density of cities, and wealth disparity -- not to gun laws. The reason that Australia has had "success" with gun laws is because they're not as jam-packed as the US east coast, or the UK. Effectively, those laws solve a problem that wasn't there.
With that said, the gun talk is very off topic. Cutting NSF funding is going to bite us in the ass much like the R&D cuts of the last decade have already. There is a demonstrable need for this research. Arguments over what topics are valid are a baby with the bath water mentality. We could change the topics receiving funding, or even revamp the fund allocation process without slashing the entire mechanism.
The "3/5ths Compromise" was a move to remove power from plantation owners, not to devalue the humanity of slaves. Referencing it as a racist act is somewhat ironic.
The idea that specialization works isn't new, even to academia. It's a trend that we can observe in many fields; It's glaringly obvious, if you want an example, in industry. With that said, you need a basic understanding to interface. Saying you can be totally 'math illiterate' is saying that pointy-haired bosses are functional.
The term "conservatism" (as with most Left/Right arguments) is redefined constantly, by the person speaking, and when convenient. American (libertarian-leaning) conservatives would disagree with you - claiming that "conservatism" was a small-government grouping.
And those assurances are limited in scope by the enforcement ability of the body backing them.
The difference is technical weakness (USD) and expected weakness (BTC) are apples::oranges. Sure, the USD is technically vulnerable to the same sorts of things that BTC is, but they demonstrably don't experience the same volatility. That's the difference. Faith isn't an unidentifiable quantity.
Actually, assuming that he is wrong, it would make him incorrect. Lying would imply both knowledge and intent; one can be ignorant and wrong, thus precluding them from being a liar, as they believe what they are saying to be true! Excelsior!
If an argument over the role of government ends in "either support these entitlements or murder all old people" you can be sure that you've left any semblance of sense in the rear-view.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not at all the mentality of a daily carry individual, it's your projection of one. It's a culture 'change' that exists only in your head, and the strawmen you argue with.
Religion isn't the only topic one can be an ignorant zealot about.
Captain Pedantic to the rescue!
While it might be true in this case that the change is unnatural, the implication that all severe change is unnatural is incorrect.
Excelsior!
Violence rates are directly related to the density of cities, and wealth disparity -- not to gun laws. The reason that Australia has had "success" with gun laws is because they're not as jam-packed as the US east coast, or the UK. Effectively, those laws solve a problem that wasn't there.
With that said, the gun talk is very off topic. Cutting NSF funding is going to bite us in the ass much like the R&D cuts of the last decade have already. There is a demonstrable need for this research. Arguments over what topics are valid are a baby with the bath water mentality. We could change the topics receiving funding, or even revamp the fund allocation process without slashing the entire mechanism.
Fuck Lamar Smith.
Captain Pedantic here,
The "3/5ths Compromise" was a move to remove power from plantation owners, not to devalue the humanity of slaves. Referencing it as a racist act is somewhat ironic.
Excelsior!
Captain Pedantic here, Anti-Canadian sentiment would be nationalist, not racist, as "Canadian" isn't a race. Excelsior!
The idea that specialization works isn't new, even to academia. It's a trend that we can observe in many fields; It's glaringly obvious, if you want an example, in industry. With that said, you need a basic understanding to interface. Saying you can be totally 'math illiterate' is saying that pointy-haired bosses are functional.
^ This. The leap to "1984" is non-sequitur at best.
The term "conservatism" (as with most Left/Right arguments) is redefined constantly, by the person speaking, and when convenient. American (libertarian-leaning) conservatives would disagree with you - claiming that "conservatism" was a small-government grouping.
And those assurances are limited in scope by the enforcement ability of the body backing them.
The difference is technical weakness (USD) and expected weakness (BTC) are apples::oranges. Sure, the USD is technically vulnerable to the same sorts of things that BTC is, but they demonstrably don't experience the same volatility. That's the difference. Faith isn't an unidentifiable quantity.
No, no you cannot.
"I cannot conceive a use for this, thus it has no use."
...said nobody intelligent, ever.
Capt. Pedantic to the rescue!
Actually, assuming that he is wrong, it would make him incorrect. Lying would imply both knowledge and intent; one can be ignorant and wrong, thus precluding them from being a liar, as they believe what they are saying to be true! Excelsior!
...And we've reached the end of sane discussion.
If an argument over the role of government ends in "either support these entitlements or murder all old people" you can be sure that you've left any semblance of sense in the rear-view.