http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...
I'm not saying what she did was ok, I'm saying it shouldn't be prosecuted, and I comment in her defense because of scale, and all the context of today's political landscape. I'm considering how much flak she's already taken for this issue. And when discussing politics, part of the conversation really is purely comparative, it's inescapable. To ignore that is to be dishonest or blind.
Side-note: I also believe speeding shouldn't be treated like it is in the US, I like the Autobahn.
What do you think would happen if you had a secret or top secret clearance and emailed 110 confidential emails to people using unsecured email?
I don't deal with hundreds of classified pieces of information daily. Apples and oranges. But the point of the article was the FBI saying the issue has been investigated enough.
Maybe they could be, but do we need to waste so much resources on this kind of legal witch hunt? The Iraq war has caused over 1 million deaths. Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. Did they suffer, in any way, for using private, hackable email? I don't care. I'd rather our resources be used investigating how we got into the Iraq war, who profited from it, what laws were broken, what can be corrected so future mistakes like that aren't made. My point is scale. 1 million deaths matters more than almost anything else I can think of, and the war has had more consequences than just the deaths. You can talk about an email server all you want (of course I agree mistakes were made and should be corrected, and it looks like they will), but in the bigger picture, this whole thing is completely irrelevant.
I think I agree to some point, but otoh, it just took you a couple minutes to spout this opinion to hundreds or thousands of strangers, costing no money whatsoever, and you could have posted as 'anonymous coward' from your phone on the freeway. It wouldn't have been so easy to reach so many people so quickly 20 years ago.
1) 60% of the 22,000(ish) gun-related deaths recorded by the CDC in its most recent study were suicides.
And? That doesn't change my argument. Sensible gun laws would reduce the number of suicides and murders, maybe even equally. That's a lot of mothers out there avoiding funerals.
2) Gun crime as a whole is down nearly 50% since the 1990s, yet the media and the government would have you believe the opposite.
I haven't seen anything claiming it's rising, but fine I'll believe it.
3) Less than 5% of overall gun-related deaths involved a rifle of ANY kind. That's around 1,000 or so deaths caused by a long gun.
Yup, my high school paper noted that handguns have only one purpose - killing other humans (contrarians using the wrong tool for a job aside). I never blindly advocated restriction of all guns in America. Well, that actually brings us to the next point...
4) If you take Washington, DC, Detroit, and Chicago out of this count (note that these have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country), then not only does the gun violence drop WAAAAAY down (but wait, I thought guns were illegal so why do the criminals have them???). So do the overall violent crime statistics for our country.
Have you ever wondered why it worked in Australia? What is it about America where we have the highest gun murder rate in the rich world? One of the most obvious reasons is that Australia is surrounded by water. The government made a law that was difficult to break. Individual cities in America are surrounded by places without restrictive gun laws. Simple import/export. Do you know where Mexican cartels get their guns from? America. Do you know the source of guns in 99% of gun-related crimes in America? Law abiding gun owners. That's right, you. You probably don't keep your guns locked up - at least not well enough to prevent theft for sure. But what are the best ways to insure prevention of theft? Once stolen, where are the biggest trouble spots, where does law need to crack down on criminals trading? How are guns used legally and illegally? What's the best way to stop criminals but allow legal ownership? We can't know for sure. Why? Like most gun arguments, knowing the real stats is hard because we're not allowed to studyortrack anything related to guns. It's against the law to be knowledgeable about the facts. I'm sure you'll come up with several excuses for remaining willfully ignorant, but if you ever considered the entire situation and removed your own bias, you'd find that it's not worth it.
You may be willing to roll over and die like a coward at the hands of a criminal, but I am not.
Cute. Surprise, I'm a "safe" gun owner, I've studied several martial arts, practiced several ranges of scenarios, but I use the right tool for the right job. Situations can be different, and if you choose to pull your gun, it increases the chance that someone else does the same, and that it's used against you. I might be prepared to deal with that, but you'd be stupid not to consider the odds, and I wouldn't mind taking those scenarios off the table for all of us. I bet I'd win in almost any situation, but I'd rather live in a society that deals a little less with killing.
Damit, you're right. I have to agree. But, I also have to mention the political reality that the majority of Americans support sensible gun laws, heck the majority of NRA members support them, yet sensible gun laws continually get shutdown or eliminated. That's political reality, and this current issue is the first thing I've seen that/seems/ to have the kind of support that the issue deserves.
How how short some memories are. Directly/before/ W, the reps did,/actually/ impeach a democrat for a marital affair, something most presidents have probably done and lied about. The W administration started a war by lying to the American people. A war that ended up with the death of over a million people, the birth of Al qwakery in Iraq, the birth of isis, and a cost of trillions of dollars. If anyone deserved impeachment, it was W. Read your own links.
What's the first step in this process? How many steps do you get through before realizing that it's impossible to go further because of powerful lobbyist groups? The message of 'no gun laws' is just easier than a message of nuanced, sensible gun laws.
Above is one of the better arguments I've heard in defense of 2A. However, I totally agree with this response. Times are different, the situation is different, and laws are meant to govern, not commandments handed down by God. If the situation changes, people should update the laws.
This might be going further than Darinbob:
The biggest danger to us on this topic right now is deranged people using weapons designed to kill people easily. The foreseeable future does not have a danger that the US government needs rising against. The worst thing the US government has done recently is wage an unjust, idiotic war, while the people that support this kind of war most are generally the same ones that own and want to own the most powerful guns. So if you call me an idiot for my view that guns should be sensibly regulated, then I call you a dangerous idiot for refusing to acknowledge the facts, the reality of the present, the success of Australia and UK, where, bottom line, less people die needlessly.
To note, yes, I attended college (where I never discussed guns), but I formed these opinions by doing a research paper as a high school freshman, and I started out on the opposite side of the gun argument. But after reading a lot of all sides of the argument, I threw my paper away and started over.
Since you can't be bothered to read the parent posts, I'll summarize for you:
harrkev implied Trump is not racist because he uses the words "illegal" and "Muslim" to identify who he's attacking/insulting. There are many logical issues with that, but danlip ignored most of them, and just mentioned one of the most recent specific things Trump has said that is in fact racist. bartles responded with the logic that [if some random black people supposedly claim specific groups of white people cannot be impartial, then that's the same thing as the guy running for president saying that a person's race prevents them from being able to do a specific job]. ShanghaiBill pointed out that we are talking about the person running for president, that's the biggest difference. That was a relevant, thoughtful response.
McCarthy went after people suspected of Communism. It could have been anyone, but it was one group. Trump has insulted/threatened Hispanics, Women, Muslims, Iowans, the media, the disabled, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Blacks, Asians, and POW's. That's the short list. He's actually incited physical violence, and this is all/before/ his election to the most powerful position in the world. It's apples and oranges, but if you're going to compare it to McCarthyism, the similarities are scary enough, but I personally think Trump rings the bell louder.
I think intentions do matter. Logic says if they have good intentions, the odds are much greater it'll benefit the public. In fact if they have bad intentions, there's a high chance they'd be deceitful about what they're doing, and try to sell it like they're taking power away from the government.
Trump is the lesser evil. He's a bumbling buffoon versus someone who deals regularly in shady government practices.
I disagree with both statements. Trump is a proven master of media, government manipulation (subsidies, bankruptcies), and proving to be a master politician. He routinely tells flat out lies and never has to retract them. He could murder someone and his supporters would continue their support.
Meanwhile, which politician out there doesn't deal with shady government practices?
I do have to applaud the idea of supporting the lesser of the evils though. That's rational. I'd just value honesty more. The only thing Trump has going for him, imho, is he's been successful at making money. However, honest investors can actually be even more successful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'd like to see links about how Hillary shut out Lessig. The idea doesn't surprise me (a Lessig supporter) at all, and I'd think that most politicians would do the same to their opponents if they could, but I'm open to hearing more about it.
They also fought against SOPA and PIPA more than the Republicans. But when the subject was SOPA and PIPA, we talked about SOPA and PIPA. No need to hijack this thread by changing the subject.
If you have 2 clocks, one says you've got 5 minutes before a meeting, another says 4, who cares if any of them are off, just get your butt to the meeting!
With climate change, we have thousands of clocks, and almost all of them are saying we better do something.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why are you stopping me for speeding? There's murderers out there!"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S... I'm not saying what she did was ok, I'm saying it shouldn't be prosecuted, and I comment in her defense because of scale, and all the context of today's political landscape. I'm considering how much flak she's already taken for this issue. And when discussing politics, part of the conversation really is purely comparative, it's inescapable. To ignore that is to be dishonest or blind.
Side-note: I also believe speeding shouldn't be treated like it is in the US, I like the Autobahn.
What do you think would happen if you had a secret or top secret clearance and emailed 110 confidential emails to people using unsecured email?
I don't deal with hundreds of classified pieces of information daily. Apples and oranges. But the point of the article was the FBI saying the issue has been investigated enough.
Maybe they could be, but do we need to waste so much resources on this kind of legal witch hunt? The Iraq war has caused over 1 million deaths. Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. Did they suffer, in any way, for using private, hackable email? I don't care. I'd rather our resources be used investigating how we got into the Iraq war, who profited from it, what laws were broken, what can be corrected so future mistakes like that aren't made. My point is scale. 1 million deaths matters more than almost anything else I can think of, and the war has had more consequences than just the deaths. You can talk about an email server all you want (of course I agree mistakes were made and should be corrected, and it looks like they will), but in the bigger picture, this whole thing is completely irrelevant.
I think I agree to some point, but otoh, it just took you a couple minutes to spout this opinion to hundreds or thousands of strangers, costing no money whatsoever, and you could have posted as 'anonymous coward' from your phone on the freeway. It wouldn't have been so easy to reach so many people so quickly 20 years ago.
I'd say you're being willfully ignorant.
1) 60% of the 22,000(ish) gun-related deaths recorded by the CDC in its most recent study were suicides.
And? That doesn't change my argument. Sensible gun laws would reduce the number of suicides and murders, maybe even equally. That's a lot of mothers out there avoiding funerals.
2) Gun crime as a whole is down nearly 50% since the 1990s, yet the media and the government would have you believe the opposite.
I haven't seen anything claiming it's rising, but fine I'll believe it.
3) Less than 5% of overall gun-related deaths involved a rifle of ANY kind. That's around 1,000 or so deaths caused by a long gun.
Yup, my high school paper noted that handguns have only one purpose - killing other humans (contrarians using the wrong tool for a job aside). I never blindly advocated restriction of all guns in America. Well, that actually brings us to the next point...
4) If you take Washington, DC, Detroit, and Chicago out of this count (note that these have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country), then not only does the gun violence drop WAAAAAY down (but wait, I thought guns were illegal so why do the criminals have them???). So do the overall violent crime statistics for our country.
Have you ever wondered why it worked in Australia? What is it about America where we have the highest gun murder rate in the rich world? One of the most obvious reasons is that Australia is surrounded by water. The government made a law that was difficult to break. Individual cities in America are surrounded by places without restrictive gun laws. Simple import/export. Do you know where Mexican cartels get their guns from? America. Do you know the source of guns in 99% of gun-related crimes in America? Law abiding gun owners. That's right, you. You probably don't keep your guns locked up - at least not well enough to prevent theft for sure. But what are the best ways to insure prevention of theft? Once stolen, where are the biggest trouble spots, where does law need to crack down on criminals trading? How are guns used legally and illegally? What's the best way to stop criminals but allow legal ownership? We can't know for sure. Why? Like most gun arguments, knowing the real stats is hard because we're not allowed to study or track anything related to guns. It's against the law to be knowledgeable about the facts. I'm sure you'll come up with several excuses for remaining willfully ignorant, but if you ever considered the entire situation and removed your own bias, you'd find that it's not worth it.
You may be willing to roll over and die like a coward at the hands of a criminal, but I am not.
Cute. Surprise, I'm a "safe" gun owner, I've studied several martial arts, practiced several ranges of scenarios, but I use the right tool for the right job. Situations can be different, and if you choose to pull your gun, it increases the chance that someone else does the same, and that it's used against you. I might be prepared to deal with that, but you'd be stupid not to consider the odds, and I wouldn't mind taking those scenarios off the table for all of us. I bet I'd win in almost any situation, but I'd rather live in a society that deals a little less with killing.
Damit, you're right. I have to agree. But, I also have to mention the political reality that the majority of Americans support sensible gun laws, heck the majority of NRA members support them, yet sensible gun laws continually get shutdown or eliminated. That's political reality, and this current issue is the first thing I've seen that /seems/ to have the kind of support that the issue deserves.
How how short some memories are. Directly /before/ W, the reps did, /actually/ impeach a democrat for a marital affair, something most presidents have probably done and lied about. The W administration started a war by lying to the American people. A war that ended up with the death of over a million people, the birth of Al qwakery in Iraq, the birth of isis, and a cost of trillions of dollars. If anyone deserved impeachment, it was W. Read your own links.
What's the first step in this process? How many steps do you get through before realizing that it's impossible to go further because of powerful lobbyist groups? The message of 'no gun laws' is just easier than a message of nuanced, sensible gun laws.
Above is one of the better arguments I've heard in defense of 2A. However, I totally agree with this response. Times are different, the situation is different, and laws are meant to govern, not commandments handed down by God. If the situation changes, people should update the laws.
This might be going further than Darinbob:
The biggest danger to us on this topic right now is deranged people using weapons designed to kill people easily. The foreseeable future does not have a danger that the US government needs rising against. The worst thing the US government has done recently is wage an unjust, idiotic war, while the people that support this kind of war most are generally the same ones that own and want to own the most powerful guns. So if you call me an idiot for my view that guns should be sensibly regulated, then I call you a dangerous idiot for refusing to acknowledge the facts, the reality of the present, the success of Australia and UK, where, bottom line, less people die needlessly.
To note, yes, I attended college (where I never discussed guns), but I formed these opinions by doing a research paper as a high school freshman, and I started out on the opposite side of the gun argument. But after reading a lot of all sides of the argument, I threw my paper away and started over.
Since you can't be bothered to read the parent posts, I'll summarize for you: harrkev implied Trump is not racist because he uses the words "illegal" and "Muslim" to identify who he's attacking/insulting. There are many logical issues with that, but danlip ignored most of them, and just mentioned one of the most recent specific things Trump has said that is in fact racist. bartles responded with the logic that [if some random black people supposedly claim specific groups of white people cannot be impartial, then that's the same thing as the guy running for president saying that a person's race prevents them from being able to do a specific job]. ShanghaiBill pointed out that we are talking about the person running for president, that's the biggest difference. That was a relevant, thoughtful response.
McCarthy went after people suspected of Communism. It could have been anyone, but it was one group. Trump has insulted/threatened Hispanics, Women, Muslims, Iowans, the media, the disabled, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Blacks, Asians, and POW's. That's the short list. He's actually incited physical violence, and this is all /before/ his election to the most powerful position in the world. It's apples and oranges, but if you're going to compare it to McCarthyism, the similarities are scary enough, but I personally think Trump rings the bell louder.
I think intentions do matter. Logic says if they have good intentions, the odds are much greater it'll benefit the public. In fact if they have bad intentions, there's a high chance they'd be deceitful about what they're doing, and try to sell it like they're taking power away from the government.
Trump is the lesser evil. He's a bumbling buffoon versus someone who deals regularly in shady government practices.
I disagree with both statements. Trump is a proven master of media, government manipulation (subsidies, bankruptcies), and proving to be a master politician. He routinely tells flat out lies and never has to retract them. He could murder someone and his supporters would continue their support.
Meanwhile, which politician out there doesn't deal with shady government practices?
I do have to applaud the idea of supporting the lesser of the evils though. That's rational. I'd just value honesty more. The only thing Trump has going for him, imho, is he's been successful at making money. However, honest investors can actually be even more successful: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'd like to see links about how Hillary shut out Lessig. The idea doesn't surprise me (a Lessig supporter) at all, and I'd think that most politicians would do the same to their opponents if they could, but I'm open to hearing more about it.
They also fought against SOPA and PIPA more than the Republicans. But when the subject was SOPA and PIPA, we talked about SOPA and PIPA. No need to hijack this thread by changing the subject.
If you have 2 clocks, one says you've got 5 minutes before a meeting, another says 4, who cares if any of them are off, just get your butt to the meeting!
With climate change, we have thousands of clocks, and almost all of them are saying we better do something.
I had the same experience as AmiMoJo:
Acne - 404
Longer plane flights - Daily Mall
agricultural land increase - No data received - ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE
That site tries to make a bunch of red herrings. Poorly, imo.