I acknowledge the facts in your post are true, and I agree with your conclusion about unintended consequences. But he posted that more murders are committed with baseball bats than "guns". What he posted is untrue, so let's encourage him to say what he means, and not spread disinformation, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I'm well aware of the different stats for long rifles, including the dreaded assault rifle, as opposed to handguns. If he meant "assault rifles" he should have said so, but what he actually posted was demonstrably untrue, and probably contributed to ongoing ignorance.
"Okay people, on 3. 1, 2..." "Wait, why do *you* get to count it off? I want to count it off..." "Well, I don't want either of you counting down for me. I'm just going to throw."
For those who won't bother to click, it's Firearms: 67.8%, Blunt Objects: 3.9%. As Snopes says, even if *every* blunt object homicide it by baseball bat, the parent's assertion is not just wrong, it's overwhelmingly wrong.
My personal experience is that people take security clearances very seriously. My father was a civilian engineer for a contractor that built the Trident submarines, which carry Polaris nuclear missiles. He designed some of the systems.
I just told you everything I ever learned about what my father did for a living.
But the difference is that while those emissions are higher from coal plants while they are operating, when they go horribly wrong hundreds of thousands of people don't have to be evacuated, causing human misery and huge economic costs, and sometimes poisoning the surrounding area for many years.
Speaking of having to pay for healthcare being an excuse to control lifestyles... I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.
You want to outlaw obesity? Smoking? Awesome! Right on!
Oh, you meant gay men? That's not a lifestyle, that's how they were born. If you meant you'd outlaw promiscuity without condoms, regardless of sexuality, you'd at least be a little closer.
I didn't "frame the discussion as 'killing U.S. citizens'", it was one of a couple of the many actions I mentioned that I dislike from this president. Keep some perspective - the ease with which you call me a chauvinist reflects some in you.
Now you're just being foolish. You're dragging in euthanasia, which has nothing to do with the issue, and you're trying to win by throwing in red herrings and straw men. People who choose to donate their bodies after their deaths (as I have done) can choose to donate an organ, or all organs, or their entire bodies. Your argument makes no sense.
I made that assumption since your analogy was so poorly expressed it was reasonable to do so, and because you made such a foolish assumption about me in your first response.
Once again, my point is that your ethical horror is one of degree only, and is very hypocritical. Since you keep missing the point (I think to showcase what an ethical soul you are), you can take the last response. I'm done arguing with a fool.
Other people have responded with the correct answer, but I will too - armies engaged with enemies on foreign soil do not require judicial review to kill them. This is true for every country in the world which has engaged in conflicts.
Targeting U.S. citizens abroad for death without a constitutional review is a separate and particularly egregious thing for the president to do. I wasn't making an exhaustive list, so I threw a couple of the things I didn't like about what Obama has done into the post, but if it makes you feel better, I don't like the indiscriminate killing of other nationals abroad either.
Your last line is an assumption of my beliefs not in evidence from my post. But since we're on the subject, have you done anything, anything at all about killing of those other human beings, aside from a snarky post at me? Thought not.
Actually, "moreso" over the top. I voted for him twice, but I'm dismayed at how far overboard he's gone with the "pragmatic" view that killing U.S. citizens without judicial review and continuing the indiscriminate spying is necessary for the national interest. Better than Willard, but it's still creepy.
As to the reason there's more fuss, it's more complicated than the racism and/or hatred of Reps for Dems you imply. It's also that it's gone on for too long, and he's doing things even Bush didn't do.
You claim fallacy by inserting a condition that wasn't part of the conversation. I said "donor", not "forced donor". You added the "forced" part in your reply to me, in which you got hot for no good reason. My reply to your post, in which you did not identify "forced donor", was extremely reasonable.
And since you like to make assumptions not warranted, I'll make a warranted assumption about you. Since your analogy was "Do I object to a prisoner getting BOTH kidneys removed...", presumably by force, you imply that it's ethical to take ONE kidney from a prisoner by force, or just SOME blood by force, which I find morally repugnant.
As for voluntary whole-body donations for people who no longer have a use for theirs, I think that's just fine, and not actually my business, or yours.
For salary? Sounds like you both got taken. Being on call and working "extra" hours is only legitimate for short periods of actual need. My team delivers outstanding quality to the company, and I protect them (and me) by limiting overtime appropriately. It's unfair, and almost always unnecessary, to place the kinds of demands you describe on employees. I won't stand for it, and I still cover all necessary operations for my company's current business and growth.
Snowden was stupid enough to blab about what he found, he could have probably functioned a lot better by slowly feeding the American Conspiracy ideal by saying. I have worked for the CIA, I cannot tell you the details but you all should be really scared about your privacy. He probably could have gotten much further.
How about MLK? Could he have gotten much further if he went around politely murmuring in people's ears, "Uh, I think maybe we could do better for some people who aren't being treated very well..."
Or Gandhi? "You know, perhaps the British have made a mistake or two, and should maybe think about giving India its independence."
Okay, if those two are too far, how about if Daniel Ellsberg kept telling his friends, "Hey, the U.S. might be doing some less than perfect things in Vietnam."
So you object to a whole-body donor. Okay. How about blood? That okay? All right, how about a kidney, to keep your brother from dying? Okey-dokey with you? Okay, how about my heart after I die; it can save someone else's life, and I am an organ donor; they can take as many as are useful.
So, unless you're a total whackjob, you're okay with the above examples of existing transplants, but when it gets to an entire body, that's your red line?
Can you tell us how that's even remotely consistent? Or would you prefer no transplants at all, no blood donors either, so even more people can expire before their time?
I mean common who isn't interested in keeping both halves consistent. Though I guess it would finally be possible for a man to be trapped in a hot female body. And we can all guess how that would go.
Yes, we certainly can. Lots of hot sex in this story. I think Heinlein was more than a little interested in being a hot chick and getting spanked and fucked.
You're ascribing malice to the government, in that they deliberately avoid or even kill efforts to outlaw texting while driving and enforce those laws.
As usual, the real causes are more complex, but one of them is lobbying by the phone companies... no texting while driving reduces their income streams. Is greed a more evil motive than lust for power? I'm not sure.
Huh, I wouldn't have thought 200K was a city, I would have said town. But then I did some searching, and there's no consistent measure for town vs. city. There are 5 people cities (every municipality in ND is a city), and towns with hundreds of thousands of people.
However, my on-topic thought is that 200K is still rather small and intimate compared to places like NY, Boston, L.A., Philadelphia, Miami, etc. Go to movies in any of those cities, and you're in for a festival of cell phone usage and other, more "exotic" behaviors.
When my (physician) wife was a resident, and then a fellow, we didn't go to the theater, even the movie theater, when she was on call. It's just too inconsiderate, and some limits to social life just came with the job.
I'm not saying you're a bad person, but disturbing people in a movie theater with your phone, even on buzz, even if you only look at the illuminated screen for a moment, is kind of rude. Also, always on "call me if you need help"? One of the best lessons I've learned over the decades is that no one is that indispensable.
Slashdot Mirror
I acknowledge the facts in your post are true, and I agree with your conclusion about unintended consequences. But he posted that more murders are committed with baseball bats than "guns". What he posted is untrue, so let's encourage him to say what he means, and not spread disinformation, either intentionally or unintentionally.
I'm well aware of the different stats for long rifles, including the dreaded assault rifle, as opposed to handguns. If he meant "assault rifles" he should have said so, but what he actually posted was demonstrably untrue, and probably contributed to ongoing ignorance.
"plucky anarchists... ...with a rock barrage"?
"Okay people, on 3. 1, 2..."
"Wait, why do *you* get to count it off? I want to count it off..."
"Well, I don't want either of you counting down for me. I'm just going to throw."
In the meantime the gun wielder has reloaded...
Mod parent as flamebait, or maybe troll. Here's the truth; http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
For those who won't bother to click, it's Firearms: 67.8%, Blunt Objects: 3.9%. As Snopes says, even if *every* blunt object homicide it by baseball bat, the parent's assertion is not just wrong, it's overwhelmingly wrong.
Right - Americans certainly wouldn't show inordinate deference to superiors. They just drink 16 rum and diet cokes the night before they fly. http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-dumbest-pilots/8
crap, crap, lotta crap, and then, "...including a brothel owner who announced on a radio show she was about to testify in court..."
A brothel owner! Why didn't you say so before? That suddenly makes it all believable.
Now pardon me, I have an appointment at Need Want.
HIPAA, not HIPPA. And if you had included a link to a hippo, I would have ralphed all over the keyboard.
I went to too many meetings at [gigantic insurance company] when HIPAA was rolled out.
Now I have to go finish a HIPAA breach report for our compliance officer.
My personal experience is that people take security clearances very seriously. My father was a civilian engineer for a contractor that built the Trident submarines, which carry Polaris nuclear missiles. He designed some of the systems.
I just told you everything I ever learned about what my father did for a living.
But the difference is that while those emissions are higher from coal plants while they are operating, when they go horribly wrong hundreds of thousands of people don't have to be evacuated, causing human misery and huge economic costs, and sometimes poisoning the surrounding area for many years.
Speaking of having to pay for healthcare being an excuse to control lifestyles... I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.
You want to outlaw obesity? Smoking? Awesome! Right on!
Oh, you meant gay men? That's not a lifestyle, that's how they were born. If you meant you'd outlaw promiscuity without condoms, regardless of sexuality, you'd at least be a little closer.
I didn't "frame the discussion as 'killing U.S. citizens'", it was one of a couple of the many actions I mentioned that I dislike from this president. Keep some perspective - the ease with which you call me a chauvinist reflects some in you.
Now you're just being foolish. You're dragging in euthanasia, which has nothing to do with the issue, and you're trying to win by throwing in red herrings and straw men. People who choose to donate their bodies after their deaths (as I have done) can choose to donate an organ, or all organs, or their entire bodies. Your argument makes no sense.
I made that assumption since your analogy was so poorly expressed it was reasonable to do so, and because you made such a foolish assumption about me in your first response.
Once again, my point is that your ethical horror is one of degree only, and is very hypocritical. Since you keep missing the point (I think to showcase what an ethical soul you are), you can take the last response. I'm done arguing with a fool.
Other people have responded with the correct answer, but I will too - armies engaged with enemies on foreign soil do not require judicial review to kill them. This is true for every country in the world which has engaged in conflicts.
Targeting U.S. citizens abroad for death without a constitutional review is a separate and particularly egregious thing for the president to do. I wasn't making an exhaustive list, so I threw a couple of the things I didn't like about what Obama has done into the post, but if it makes you feel better, I don't like the indiscriminate killing of other nationals abroad either.
Your last line is an assumption of my beliefs not in evidence from my post. But since we're on the subject, have you done anything, anything at all about killing of those other human beings, aside from a snarky post at me? Thought not.
Actually, "moreso" over the top. I voted for him twice, but I'm dismayed at how far overboard he's gone with the "pragmatic" view that killing U.S. citizens without judicial review and continuing the indiscriminate spying is necessary for the national interest. Better than Willard, but it's still creepy.
As to the reason there's more fuss, it's more complicated than the racism and/or hatred of Reps for Dems you imply. It's also that it's gone on for too long, and he's doing things even Bush didn't do.
You claim fallacy by inserting a condition that wasn't part of the conversation. I said "donor", not "forced donor". You added the "forced" part in your reply to me, in which you got hot for no good reason. My reply to your post, in which you did not identify "forced donor", was extremely reasonable.
And since you like to make assumptions not warranted, I'll make a warranted assumption about you. Since your analogy was "Do I object to a prisoner getting BOTH kidneys removed...", presumably by force, you imply that it's ethical to take ONE kidney from a prisoner by force, or just SOME blood by force, which I find morally repugnant.
As for voluntary whole-body donations for people who no longer have a use for theirs, I think that's just fine, and not actually my business, or yours.
For salary? Sounds like you both got taken. Being on call and working "extra" hours is only legitimate for short periods of actual need. My team delivers outstanding quality to the company, and I protect them (and me) by limiting overtime appropriately. It's unfair, and almost always unnecessary, to place the kinds of demands you describe on employees. I won't stand for it, and I still cover all necessary operations for my company's current business and growth.
I've read nearly everything he wrote. He did start losing me with "Friday" though. And he was one racist mofo... :-)
It's still rude. But I'm happy for you that you pull in such a handsome salary. Do you know what your manager makes?
Snowden was stupid enough to blab about what he found, he could have probably functioned a lot better by slowly feeding the American Conspiracy ideal by saying. I have worked for the CIA, I cannot tell you the details but you all should be really scared about your privacy. He probably could have gotten much further.
How about MLK? Could he have gotten much further if he went around politely murmuring in people's ears, "Uh, I think maybe we could do better for some people who aren't being treated very well..."
Or Gandhi? "You know, perhaps the British have made a mistake or two, and should maybe think about giving India its independence."
Okay, if those two are too far, how about if Daniel Ellsberg kept telling his friends, "Hey, the U.S. might be doing some less than perfect things in Vietnam."
So you object to a whole-body donor. Okay. How about blood? That okay? All right, how about a kidney, to keep your brother from dying? Okey-dokey with you? Okay, how about my heart after I die; it can save someone else's life, and I am an organ donor; they can take as many as are useful.
So, unless you're a total whackjob, you're okay with the above examples of existing transplants, but when it gets to an entire body, that's your red line?
Can you tell us how that's even remotely consistent? Or would you prefer no transplants at all, no blood donors either, so even more people can expire before their time?
I mean common who isn't interested in keeping both halves consistent. Though I guess it would finally be possible for a man to be trapped in a hot female body. And we can all guess how that would go.
Yes, we certainly can. Lots of hot sex in this story. I think Heinlein was more than a little interested in being a hot chick and getting spanked and fucked.
http://www.amazon.com/I-Will-Fear-No-Evil/dp/0441359175
You're ascribing malice to the government, in that they deliberately avoid or even kill efforts to outlaw texting while driving and enforce those laws.
As usual, the real causes are more complex, but one of them is lobbying by the phone companies... no texting while driving reduces their income streams. Is greed a more evil motive than lust for power? I'm not sure.
Huh, I wouldn't have thought 200K was a city, I would have said town. But then I did some searching, and there's no consistent measure for town vs. city. There are 5 people cities (every municipality in ND is a city), and towns with hundreds of thousands of people.
However, my on-topic thought is that 200K is still rather small and intimate compared to places like NY, Boston, L.A., Philadelphia, Miami, etc. Go to movies in any of those cities, and you're in for a festival of cell phone usage and other, more "exotic" behaviors.
I prefer, "do many things well." Remember Heinlein's quote, "...specialization is for insects."
When my (physician) wife was a resident, and then a fellow, we didn't go to the theater, even the movie theater, when she was on call. It's just too inconsiderate, and some limits to social life just came with the job.
I'm not saying you're a bad person, but disturbing people in a movie theater with your phone, even on buzz, even if you only look at the illuminated screen for a moment, is kind of rude. Also, always on "call me if you need help"? One of the best lessons I've learned over the decades is that no one is that indispensable.