You're delusional. From the article you referenced:
Naturally, such examples will be rare.
Well, naturally given a small sample size of folks with guns shooting bad guys, it's going to be even RARER to find an example of collateral damage. However, it's quite reasonable to imagine a scenario where unarmed victims get caught in crossfire. In mass shooting situations, yokels playing Wyatt Earp don't save lives, exit doors do.
Also, it snows in Canada during winter. Therefore, climate change must be a hoax, right? There is absolutely no way that fewer guns will result in less gun violence! Today's shooting is PROOF!/sarcasm
I swear you pro-gun folks are completely incapable of understanding nuance.
Actually, HOA's are a civil matter and violating a civil contract is not a crime. Thus, they are completely different than what Mr.CRC described.
You don't want to see prostitutes soliciting on street corners. It seems that everyone whose replied to you agrees. The argument is how to get them off the streets, and I think it's been made clear that the way to do that is to legalize and regulate prostitution. We already have regulations on porn, which keeps the actors largely safe from violence, extortion, STDs, etc. (and really, porn is prostitution by any definition). And consensual sex behind closed doors in any other context is perfectly legal, obviously. So, your argument seems to be coming more from a moral perspective than a practical one.
Obviously I don't know what your skin color is, and I can't presume to know what this particular police officer was thinking when he shot the man in this video. However, he was fired and is currently out on bond for this shooting. Interestingly, he was just arrested again yesterday for shoplifting. The point is that these types of senseless shootings by police are very much reality if you happen to be black or Latino in the U.S. I'm not going to cite a source on that because I think that you should take a look and discover the information for yourself.
Being afraid to go "downtown" after dark is one thing. It's still your prerogative and it's based on personal experience. I've been mugged, so I understand. Being afraid that a cop is going to shoot you and/or arrest you during a routine traffic stop because of your skin color is another thing entirely, and it's the reason people want more cameras pointed at the police.
mutations that drive tumour growth also make cells more susceptible to infection
Interesting. Like cave dwelling creatures who've "lost" (by process of evolution) their sense of sight in order to enhance other senses. It's all good until some other creature invents a flashlight.
The average used car sold in the U.S. is now over $18,000. If you're personally fortunate enough to buy a car with cash, then congratulations. That's just not reality for most people. As you say, people need a car to get to work. Hence, they have to buy on credit. Otherwise, no job and no savings right? Chicken, egg?
So now I get to worry about one of these things smacking me in the face while I'm cutting my grass? No thanks. Space is already at a premium in urban areas. I don't think Walmart should get to take up even more of it.
Linus is deliberately taking an absolutist stance though, because he's king. Reducing common polite interpersonal discourse to "lying and backstabbing" is a logical fallacy. You can certainly be blunt without resorting to school yard insults. That so many in this thread are calling this woman a "whiny bitch" is very depressing. I've lost some respect for the slashdot community today.
Bombing cities on the other side of the world is not going to convince the inhabitants that your culture is better or more "moral". Let's try not doing that for a change.
stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name
I'm atheist and believe that all governments based on religion are the truest evil in the world. I'd like to see the Muslim extremists go too. That isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. At any rate, groups like the Taliban cannot keep returning unless they have support from the people around them. Afghanistan is not the U.S.
Now, what I would advocate for is to open our borders to refugees running from the wars we've started.
It was Saudi nationals who attacked us over 14 years ago, not Afghani's. Bin Laden was found in a house in Pakistan over 4 years ago, not a mountain in Afghanistan yesterday. So I ask again, why do we still drop bombs on Afghani civilians? You're bringing up 9/11 like it just happened. It was 14 years ago. Over 2300 U.S. troops dead and over 22,000 U.S. troops wounded. Many thousands more dead and wounded Afghani civilians (children) caught in the middle.
We do have a moral reason to leave -- hospital patients are being bombed by American forces. Just think about that for a moment. Accident or no, if it were an American hospital that was hit, it would not be called "collateral damage" and you would be outraged. And of course, incidents like these make Daesh, et al., stronger not weaker. Backwards thinking indeed.
I mean to say that there is clearly no real threat to the U.S. if:
a) the enemy is unsophisticated enough to seek shelter among civilians
b) it faces no domestic or international reprisals for bombing hospitals where it suspects those enemies might be (accidentally or otherwise)
We (the U.S.) have no moral justification for being in Afghanistan. I use the word "moral" because I suspect that the only reason we are there is because of money and/or international politics. Civilians are dying in horrific ways and we don't care because we are so far removed from the fighting that it may as well not be happening at all. There is no greater goal and I think the proof is that we have a current President and Congress who keep us committed to an endless and futile war from above instead of getting us the hell out of there.
I agree. I would also add that if a belligerent (such as the U.S.) is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its own troops and civilians, then it has no moral justification for engaging in unilateral warfare.
Right. You're comparing covert extramarital sex to eating a cookie dough blizzard, but I'm naive.
We're talking about a website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair.", and those who get caught using it without their spouse's consent. You can't do that and expect your spouse to remain committed to you.
Also, your google-fu sucks. You've described "polyamory", which is quite uncommon. You may have an "open relationship" with your partner, and that's cool. But it's not the topic of this discussion.
not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere
Barring obvious trolls, that's quite possibly the most misogynistic comment I've ever read on Slashdot. You clearly have no interest in being married (which is fine), so don't presume to know what it's like simply because you have some friends who wish their wives would "put-out" more or some other bullshit.
Reality check: you can hunt for new sex partners or you can have a best friend for life. You can't have both, which is why it's called cheating rather than "indulging", and why it's done in secret.
if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them
Ignoring the shear absurdity of your suggestion, that's not the point. For the life of me, I cannot understand people who refuse to listen to science. The CDC is your friend. Seriously, please read this.
When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."
We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has been thoroughly debunked. By advocating for non-immunization, you're putting innocents at risk.
No, actually it's quite apt to the subject. Nobody wants to be tracked by RFID, facial recognition, etc. Yet, these venues are incorporating them into their "products". They hide these policies in fine print wrapped in legalese for a reason. They're tracking you and harvesting every bit of information they can get so it can be sold to the highest bidder. Submitting to such practices makes us their product. That you don't particularly care about that fact is a moot point. And your ad hominem attack about 1984 was immature. Let's hear a real argument.
Slashdot Mirror
And when the police do finally arrive and find TWO perps with guns (remember they don't know you're the good guy with a gun), then what?
You're delusional. From the article you referenced:
Naturally, such examples will be rare.
Well, naturally given a small sample size of folks with guns shooting bad guys, it's going to be even RARER to find an example of collateral damage. However, it's quite reasonable to imagine a scenario where unarmed victims get caught in crossfire. In mass shooting situations, yokels playing Wyatt Earp don't save lives, exit doors do.
Also, it snows in Canada during winter. Therefore, climate change must be a hoax, right? There is absolutely no way that fewer guns will result in less gun violence! Today's shooting is PROOF! /sarcasm
I swear you pro-gun folks are completely incapable of understanding nuance.
Just don't click on the submission if you're not interested. Posts like this reveal your narcissism.
Actually, HOA's are a civil matter and violating a civil contract is not a crime. Thus, they are completely different than what Mr.CRC described.
You don't want to see prostitutes soliciting on street corners. It seems that everyone whose replied to you agrees. The argument is how to get them off the streets, and I think it's been made clear that the way to do that is to legalize and regulate prostitution. We already have regulations on porn, which keeps the actors largely safe from violence, extortion, STDs, etc. (and really, porn is prostitution by any definition). And consensual sex behind closed doors in any other context is perfectly legal, obviously. So, your argument seems to be coming more from a moral perspective than a practical one.
providing a service which is in many cases not taxable.
And yet, I don't ever see cops arresting yard sale patrons.
Also, your name is ironic [drpimp]
Thanks for the well thought reply.
Obviously I don't know what your skin color is, and I can't presume to know what this particular police officer was thinking when he shot the man in this video. However, he was fired and is currently out on bond for this shooting. Interestingly, he was just arrested again yesterday for shoplifting. The point is that these types of senseless shootings by police are very much reality if you happen to be black or Latino in the U.S. I'm not going to cite a source on that because I think that you should take a look and discover the information for yourself.
Being afraid to go "downtown" after dark is one thing. It's still your prerogative and it's based on personal experience. I've been mugged, so I understand. Being afraid that a cop is going to shoot you and/or arrest you during a routine traffic stop because of your skin color is another thing entirely, and it's the reason people want more cameras pointed at the police.
Thanks for clarifying and providing sources.
Norway, for example, which has a lot of Marx-flavored "equality"
Norway's cost of groceries (have fun driving to Sweden to buy frozen pizza!), or its skyrocketing sexual assault rate.
Norway is indeed a failure
You're begging the question. What the hell does a country's sexual assault rate (for which you've provided no sources) have to do with Socialism?
Interestingly, Norway's GDP is quite high, even compared to the U.S.
mutations that drive tumour growth also make cells more susceptible to infection
Interesting. Like cave dwelling creatures who've "lost" (by process of evolution) their sense of sight in order to enhance other senses. It's all good until some other creature invents a flashlight.
What are you basing this on?
The average used car sold in the U.S. is now over $18,000. If you're personally fortunate enough to buy a car with cash, then congratulations. That's just not reality for most people. As you say, people need a car to get to work. Hence, they have to buy on credit. Otherwise, no job and no savings right? Chicken, egg?
Also, what's a "first real job" these days?
So now I get to worry about one of these things smacking me in the face while I'm cutting my grass? No thanks. Space is already at a premium in urban areas. I don't think Walmart should get to take up even more of it.
Show me a video of a cop gunning down someone who is calm and following directions
Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have a strange sense of reality.
Linus is deliberately taking an absolutist stance though, because he's king. Reducing common polite interpersonal discourse to "lying and backstabbing" is a logical fallacy. You can certainly be blunt without resorting to school yard insults. That so many in this thread are calling this woman a "whiny bitch" is very depressing. I've lost some respect for the slashdot community today.
You got another solution?
Bombing cities on the other side of the world is not going to convince the inhabitants that your culture is better or more "moral". Let's try not doing that for a change.
stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name
I'm atheist and believe that all governments based on religion are the truest evil in the world. I'd like to see the Muslim extremists go too. That isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. At any rate, groups like the Taliban cannot keep returning unless they have support from the people around them. Afghanistan is not the U.S.
Now, what I would advocate for is to open our borders to refugees running from the wars we've started.
Your use of ad hominems is immature.
Dude why are you so angry? Have a beer and chill out.
As this Kunduz debacle proves, it would be virtually impossible for a US-Air Force-free Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from taking over.
Obviously, the Taliban IS taking over. 14 years of bombing runs haven't prevented it. So, your suggestion is to keep bombing cities? It doesn't work.
their interpretation of the Koran is very heavy on the "kill them all and let God sort them out" principle.
Does that include bombing hospitals and then chalking it up to "collateral damage"? Because that's what we just did.
Cheers!
Backwards from your perspective.
It was Saudi nationals who attacked us over 14 years ago, not Afghani's. Bin Laden was found in a house in Pakistan over 4 years ago, not a mountain in Afghanistan yesterday. So I ask again, why do we still drop bombs on Afghani civilians? You're bringing up 9/11 like it just happened. It was 14 years ago. Over 2300 U.S. troops dead and over 22,000 U.S. troops wounded. Many thousands more dead and wounded Afghani civilians (children) caught in the middle.
We do have a moral reason to leave -- hospital patients are being bombed by American forces. Just think about that for a moment. Accident or no, if it were an American hospital that was hit, it would not be called "collateral damage" and you would be outraged. And of course, incidents like these make Daesh, et al., stronger not weaker. Backwards thinking indeed.
I mean to say that there is clearly no real threat to the U.S. if:
a) the enemy is unsophisticated enough to seek shelter among civilians
b) it faces no domestic or international reprisals for bombing hospitals where it suspects those enemies might be (accidentally or otherwise)
We (the U.S.) have no moral justification for being in Afghanistan. I use the word "moral" because I suspect that the only reason we are there is because of money and/or international politics. Civilians are dying in horrific ways and we don't care because we are so far removed from the fighting that it may as well not be happening at all. There is no greater goal and I think the proof is that we have a current President and Congress who keep us committed to an endless and futile war from above instead of getting us the hell out of there.
I agree. I would also add that if a belligerent (such as the U.S.) is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its own troops and civilians, then it has no moral justification for engaging in unilateral warfare.
In short, what the fuck are we fighting for?
Right. You're comparing covert extramarital sex to eating a cookie dough blizzard, but I'm naive.
We're talking about a website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair.", and those who get caught using it without their spouse's consent. You can't do that and expect your spouse to remain committed to you.
Also, your google-fu sucks. You've described "polyamory", which is quite uncommon. You may have an "open relationship" with your partner, and that's cool. But it's not the topic of this discussion.
We're talking about a website that facilitates cheating and a man being upset for getting caught, not a swingers club bulletin.
not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere
Barring obvious trolls, that's quite possibly the most misogynistic comment I've ever read on Slashdot. You clearly have no interest in being married (which is fine), so don't presume to know what it's like simply because you have some friends who wish their wives would "put-out" more or some other bullshit.
Reality check: you can hunt for new sex partners or you can have a best friend for life. You can't have both, which is why it's called cheating rather than "indulging", and why it's done in secret.
if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them
Ignoring the shear absurdity of your suggestion, that's not the point. For the life of me, I cannot understand people who refuse to listen to science. The CDC is your friend. Seriously, please read this.
You need to learn about "hurd immunity". Here, I'll quote the NIH (another friend) for you:
When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."
We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has been thoroughly debunked. By advocating for non-immunization, you're putting innocents at risk.
No, actually it's quite apt to the subject. Nobody wants to be tracked by RFID, facial recognition, etc. Yet, these venues are incorporating them into their "products". They hide these policies in fine print wrapped in legalese for a reason. They're tracking you and harvesting every bit of information they can get so it can be sold to the highest bidder. Submitting to such practices makes us their product. That you don't particularly care about that fact is a moot point. And your ad hominem attack about 1984 was immature. Let's hear a real argument.