yes, and now we get into the same sort of pointless useless territory as arguing about what "hacking" means
no one owns the definition of a word, and meaning changes over time. the common perception of the term "hacking" and the technically and historically more accurate usage of the term "hacking" are separate and equally valid. not because i say so, but because of the authority of common use
likewise, the strict historical definition of "troll" and the more common meaning of any asocial hate filled speech being "trolling", which racism clearly qualifies as, also coexist
i defined my terms clearly as bullying common people from hiding. bullying someone is not a vague mystical concept, it's pretty blatant and obvious, and objectively apparent: "i disagree with your opinion and here's why..." vs "u fag, get back to sucking cock"
i have no problem with attacking common people and using your real name: you stand behind your words
i have no problem with attacking authority and using a fake name: you're avoiding *unfair* repercussions
but if you hide and hate on regular people, you're not engaging in free speech. i mean that literally: you are not free if you feel you have to hide to say words. you genuinely are not free if you attack authority: authority can abuse you. so hiding is fine. but if you hide to attack regular people, you're just avoiding fair turnaround, and you are indeed, truly, not free in your actions according to any logically coherent definition of what freedom is. you're simply manifesting a social disorder that drives you to hate on your peers. this does not advance forums. it destroys forums. hate-addled speech is not free speech, and it repels people in disgust
there's nothing wrong with whistleblowers, criticism, against leaders of industry, government bureaucrats and police, politicians, etc. but this isn't trolling. this is hiding to avoid *unfair* repercussions. there's nothing wrong with going after power as you allude to
but hiding and attacking a regular guy is trying to avoid *fair* repercussions
they spew venom only when they know there are no repercussions to their real life. so their behavior is less about truth and more about bizarre asocial need due to personality disorder
if someone attacks someone with power, they can be anonymous, and that's not trolling
if someone attacks a regular person, and uses their real name, that's not trolling
but if someone attacks just a regular guy, from careful hiding, that's trolling
and that's not free speech: that's a personality disorder degrading the commons for a sick asocial need. free speech means: i am free to speak, as myself, with my real name. i cloak myself only if i am going to be unfairly targeted. that's honorable. but if i hide to bully regular people, that's trying avoid fair repercussions. that's not honorable, that's trolling, and it must be stamped out to preserve forums. because where such behavior proliferates, everyone socially normal leaves: they don't want anything to do with such shit, and the forum dies. it's not censorship to squash anonymous hate directed at regular people, that's simply preserving common standards of decency which is the only way truly free speech can occur
Click any story with a whiff of crime, on any day.
Guaranteed racist hate.
It's like a hang out spot for old feeble bigots.
I don't understand why a serious media company like CBS News wants their brand to be associated with constant racist ignorance, but it's been this way for years.
You could imagine that being an old media company it has brought online and attracted the equally old racists.
But still: why would CBS corporate want that to persist, for years, regardless of the reason why their forum is a hang out place for intolerant morons?
Even if CBS New York is run by racists, even such a person could see how being linked to such constant hate would hurt their bottom line, and that the almighty dollar would demand the racism be scrubbed from their website. But no, it's a magnet and hang out for racist hate.
this is a discussion board, not a doctoral thesis. if your brain is so rigid you can't handle informal formatting, you're not worth the effort. keep it on topic, no one cares about your communication difficulties. if you're so feeble you can't over informal formatting, that's fine, don't read my comments again and never respond to a post of mine again, i'm completely fine with that
science serves the public interest. you should care, because it effects you. science does not occur in some ivory tower isolated from other concerns in the world. if the beliefs of antivaxxers means you get infected or the beliefs of climate change deniers means your house floods, you should care what the average person thinks
i response with a quote from the great mystical philosopher donald rumsfeld (i'm joking... about him being great or a philosopher, the quote is real, and a good quote, to give him credit):
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
the simple point is the big bang theory cannot and does not say that the limit of all we see == the limit of all there is
but this is the unfortunate popular perception of the big bang theory, that it authoritatively states that we *know* there was creation point, and no time nor space existed before, or outside
this bad popular perception is rooted in religious bias (genesis)
and it must be clarified by scientists that no, the big bang theory does not prove genesis
there could be more outside the edge of what we can see. there might not be, either. we simply don't know one way or the other
i am not asking people to embrace steady state. i am not asking people to reject big bang
i am asking people to understand there is no proof one way or another. and i am asking people especially to clarify that the big bang does not equal (it could equal, but we don't know) all there is, merely all we currently know
steady state is very much still a possibility
i ask people to consider that assuming all we know == all there is a common story told time and time again in the history of science. it is a simple human weakness, egocentrism
as for religion, egocentrism is the norm, and outside the realm of scientific discussion. but it is a shame that religious biases should informs popular perception of the big bang theory as authoritative on the notion that all we see == all there is
serious cosmologists will not say that the big bang theory means all we see == all there is. but the layman will
so serious astronomers have to emphasize the point
so religious prejudice does not color popular perception of science
it's not a strawman, it's not confined to my argument, it's not confined to slashdot
it's common perception
many if not most people, laymen if not astrophysicists and cosmologists, understand the big bang theory equals genesis from the bible/ torah/ quran: a single point from which all things sprung, no time and no space beforehand
so we have to at least emphasize it does not
we can not ignore the assumptions that take root in popular media and imagination
some sort of local expansion phenomenon, rapid even, does not disprove (or prove) a steady state universe
but this is not what most people believe or understand
so we must endeavour to clarify the bad assumption when dealing with popular perceptions. the common assumption is that the big bang theory excludes the possibility of a steady state
i am not asking people to embrace steady state. i am not asking people to reject big bang
i am asking people to understand there is no proof one way or another. and i am asking people especially to clarify that the big bang does not equal (it could equal, but we don't know) all there is, merely all we currently know
steady state is very much still a possibility
finally, i ask people to consider that assuming all we know == all there is a common story told time and time again in the history of science. it is a simple human weakness, egocentrism
but i am sorry to inform you that many if not most people, laymen if not astrophysicists and cosmologists, understand the big bang theory equals genesis from the bible/ torah/ quran: a single point from which all things sprung, no time and no space beforehand
so we have to at least emphasize it does not
we can not ignore the assumptions that take root in popular media and imagination
so yes, as you say some sort of local expansion phenomenon, rapid even, does not disprove (or prove) a steady state universe. thank you
but this is not what most people believe or understand
we must endeavour to clarify the bad assumption when dealing with popular perceptions. the common assumption is that the big bang theory excludes the possibility of a steady state
you seem to be reacting to the use of my term "cheat sheet," which is a turn of phrase that you are placing extra meaning into that i did not imply. you are reacting to that extra assumed meaning
because from where i am sitting, we are in perfect agreement
i am not saying the steady state theory is correct. i am saying we cannot say the big bang theory is authoritatively correct
everything about the big bang theory proves local expansion, not necessarily all expansion
i am simply saying that we have no proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
which has been a common fallacy throughout the history of science, especially astronomy. it's egocentrism, a simple common human weakness
can you tell me conclusively that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is?
you can't. you really can't. simply because we cannot peer beyond the CBE. that proves there is nothing beyond? there is no proof there IS something beyond. but there is no proof there isn't, either
i am not asking you to discard the big bang theory
i am not asking you to embrace the steady state theory
i am asking you to stop believing, falsely, that we have authoritative proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
the evidence you speak of neither is conclusively for the big bang theory (nor against it)
expansion could be a "local" phenomenon (on the order of billions of light years across), like the the crest and trough of waves. the CBE could simply describe an ancient local phenomenon that delineates the edge of what we can see
otherwise, this is the only difference in play here:
1. steady state theory simply says that the edge of all we see != the edge of all there is
2. the big bang theory simply says that the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is
there is no proof for or against either at this time
but, there is this on my side of the argument here:
in the history of science, there is a failed assumption that crops up time and time again, especially in astronomy: that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
it's a simple human weakness: egocentrism
i am well aware of quackery in the history of science and the role of prideful ignorance in stubbornly and blindly denying evidence
but i ask you to see the evidence that what you say argues for the big bang conclusively does not at all, on the central question we are discussing here, that the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is
it argues for expansion, yes
CBE is truly important and means something
but there is nothing that says the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is. our evidence does not prove that
and that is simply the same fallacy we have fallen for in the history of science time and again
i can level a dozen same whiny self-important "devastating" opinions at it
the simple fact is that there are billion ok movies, and a few that are truly awful, mostly on technical terms. that's it. the movies you and i might call great is simply trendy subjectivity that will come and go over time
your opinion simply is not as important nor authoritative as you imagine it is. that's just a blind ego talking
but people like to come in as some sort of self-imagined heavy authority on the quality of movies or lack thereof because it fills them with a sense of importance missing from mediocre lives
watch movies, enjoy them
no one gives a fuck about your common shallow opinions, and they carry no weight
the expansion we see is simply a local phenomenon ("local" being many billions of light years across) like the crest and trough of waves on the open ocean. the CBE is a phenomenon that happened a long time ago "locally", and delineates the edge of what we can see
that's just a theory
but it's no worse of a theory than the idea that there is a big bang that encompasses the entire universe, not just what we can see
why is the edge of what we can see = to the edge of everything, period?
proof? the "proof" is a residual prejudice from abrahamic religion in our recent history
i'm not a quack. i am well aware of the history of science and the quackery that has come and gone. i listed such quackery in my comment above
i ask you to conform rigidly to the scientific method and tell me why, with proof, that you are certain that the edge of what we can see = the edge of all that exists
you can't
i am asking you to accept this: it's a deficit of human ego to posit that all we know is all there is
if you are aware of the history of science, note that this is an assumption that has driven discarded beliefs and failed theories constantly overturned in the history of science, geography, and especially astronomy
based on that simple failure time and again in the history of science, i think it's pretty safe to say that the edge of what we know does not equal the edge of everything, period. the big bang is yet the latest iteration of this human weakness, this bias of ego, this assumption that has failed time and time again
a lot of what popular perception and popular press calls cosmology and astrophysics is pseudoscience
string theory
dark energy
even the big bang theory, commonly accepted, was formulated by a belgian priest: it's basically genesis from the bible. someone stuck abrahamic religion in the middle of "science" and no one seems to question the shaky foundations. it's just put out there without doubt or question according to popular perception and popular press. there's a lot of ways the big bang theory can be wrong and the universe is actually steady state
that being said, there is nothing wrong with sketchy theories on the edge of our awareness and our evidence, even fanciful theories on very shaky grounds. because we simply do our best at trying to understand what is going on. nothing wrong with "crazy" theories. as long as we are willing to shuffle our theories on the edge of perception dramatically when we get new evidence
but we need to place them in a separate realm, and not consider them having the same weight as serious, multiply-proven, established, and mundane mainstream scientific theories. they are more like cool trendy academic ideas that come and go over time, nothing more
like phlogiston or lamarckism or phrenology from eras past, or aether as you say
dark energy is just a cheat sheet for an empty area of the page we don't understand (yet), we only have very vague guesses. it cannot be taken very seriously, but its fun to play thought games with it. as long as we keep the discipline of the scientific method, and understand we are are being very preliminary, mostly just mental masturbation
most cosmologists and astrophysicists understand this
but they should be aware that popular perception and popular press does not, and thinks we are talking about these far out fanciful concepts with the same gravitas as the theory of gravity or the science of main sequence stars
the opinions are usually predicated on issues that have nothing to do with the movie, or have to do with the movie, but are obsessed with stupid details
for example: people bellow hatred for the scene in indiana jones 4 where he survives a nuclear blast in a refrigerator
as if the first 3 movies were models of realism, or as if realism is the point in going to see an indiana jones movie
most movies are ok. if they stink, you forget about them. not talk about them constantly. if someone has a loud, boorish, shallow opinion they need to trumpet like it's life or death, it tells you the quality of the opinion is low
criminal masterminds will always get guns. and use them wisely
we're not talking about criminal masterminds. we're talking about casual hotheads. not trying very jhard in life. denied easy guns, what do they do? they simply don't use them. proof:
you can pass a law saying only pink bubble gum can be used to fix windshield wipers, but it doesn't mean shit if you don't enforce it. we only compare the usa to its social and economic peers, countries who actually enforce the laws they pass
nevermind that all the fucking guns used by narcothugs in mexico ARE PURCHASED IN THE USA. not exactly a good example, moron: we are the problem in mexico, not just the usa. our easy guns create mass murder in the usa AND mexico
Slashdot Mirror
yes, and now we get into the same sort of pointless useless territory as arguing about what "hacking" means
no one owns the definition of a word, and meaning changes over time. the common perception of the term "hacking" and the technically and historically more accurate usage of the term "hacking" are separate and equally valid. not because i say so, but because of the authority of common use
likewise, the strict historical definition of "troll" and the more common meaning of any asocial hate filled speech being "trolling", which racism clearly qualifies as, also coexist
now let's argue about the meaning of "terrorist"
zzz
any advertiser would rightfully not want their ad to appear alongside a low iq hate filled racist screed
and CBS News is not "a forum de-facto dedicated to trolling"
i defined my terms clearly as bullying common people from hiding. bullying someone is not a vague mystical concept, it's pretty blatant and obvious, and objectively apparent: "i disagree with your opinion and here's why..." vs "u fag, get back to sucking cock"
i have no problem with attacking common people and using your real name: you stand behind your words
i have no problem with attacking authority and using a fake name: you're avoiding *unfair* repercussions
but if you hide and hate on regular people, you're not engaging in free speech. i mean that literally: you are not free if you feel you have to hide to say words. you genuinely are not free if you attack authority: authority can abuse you. so hiding is fine. but if you hide to attack regular people, you're just avoiding fair turnaround, and you are indeed, truly, not free in your actions according to any logically coherent definition of what freedom is. you're simply manifesting a social disorder that drives you to hate on your peers. this does not advance forums. it destroys forums. hate-addled speech is not free speech, and it repels people in disgust
are you honestly trying to tell me that advertisers don't work hard to keep their image clean?
because advertisers never have a problem associating themselves with behavior that might damage their image, of course
i would describe a troll as the opposite:
1. bullying of common folk
2. and carefully anonymous, as a rule
there's nothing wrong with whistleblowers, criticism, against leaders of industry, government bureaucrats and police, politicians, etc. but this isn't trolling. this is hiding to avoid *unfair* repercussions. there's nothing wrong with going after power as you allude to
but hiding and attacking a regular guy is trying to avoid *fair* repercussions
they spew venom only when they know there are no repercussions to their real life. so their behavior is less about truth and more about bizarre asocial need due to personality disorder
if someone attacks someone with power, they can be anonymous, and that's not trolling
if someone attacks a regular person, and uses their real name, that's not trolling
but if someone attacks just a regular guy, from careful hiding, that's trolling
and that's not free speech: that's a personality disorder degrading the commons for a sick asocial need. free speech means: i am free to speak, as myself, with my real name. i cloak myself only if i am going to be unfairly targeted. that's honorable. but if i hide to bully regular people, that's trying avoid fair repercussions. that's not honorable, that's trolling, and it must be stamped out to preserve forums. because where such behavior proliferates, everyone socially normal leaves: they don't want anything to do with such shit, and the forum dies. it's not censorship to squash anonymous hate directed at regular people, that's simply preserving common standards of decency which is the only way truly free speech can occur
The local CBS news affiliate in New York uses disqus.
Go here
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/
Click any story with a whiff of crime, on any day.
Guaranteed racist hate.
It's like a hang out spot for old feeble bigots.
I don't understand why a serious media company like CBS News wants their brand to be associated with constant racist ignorance, but it's been this way for years.
You could imagine that being an old media company it has brought online and attracted the equally old racists.
But still: why would CBS corporate want that to persist, for years, regardless of the reason why their forum is a hang out place for intolerant morons?
Even if CBS New York is run by racists, even such a person could see how being linked to such constant hate would hurt their bottom line, and that the almighty dollar would demand the racism be scrubbed from their website. But no, it's a magnet and hang out for racist hate.
Bizarre.
so don't respond, don't read, don't ever look at a post of mine again
agreed?
good bye
this is a discussion board, not a doctoral thesis. if your brain is so rigid you can't handle informal formatting, you're not worth the effort. keep it on topic, no one cares about your communication difficulties. if you're so feeble you can't over informal formatting, that's fine, don't read my comments again and never respond to a post of mine again, i'm completely fine with that
science serves the public interest. you should care, because it effects you. science does not occur in some ivory tower isolated from other concerns in the world. if the beliefs of antivaxxers means you get infected or the beliefs of climate change deniers means your house floods, you should care what the average person thinks
i like that
i response with a quote from the great mystical philosopher donald rumsfeld (i'm joking... about him being great or a philosopher, the quote is real, and a good quote, to give him credit):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
the simple point is the big bang theory cannot and does not say that the limit of all we see == the limit of all there is
but this is the unfortunate popular perception of the big bang theory, that it authoritatively states that we *know* there was creation point, and no time nor space existed before, or outside
this bad popular perception is rooted in religious bias (genesis)
and it must be clarified by scientists that no, the big bang theory does not prove genesis
there could be more outside the edge of what we can see. there might not be, either. we simply don't know one way or the other
i am not asking people to embrace steady state. i am not asking people to reject big bang
i am asking people to understand there is no proof one way or another. and i am asking people especially to clarify that the big bang does not equal (it could equal, but we don't know) all there is, merely all we currently know
steady state is very much still a possibility
i ask people to consider that assuming all we know == all there is a common story told time and time again in the history of science. it is a simple human weakness, egocentrism
as for religion, egocentrism is the norm, and outside the realm of scientific discussion. but it is a shame that religious biases should informs popular perception of the big bang theory as authoritative on the notion that all we see == all there is
serious cosmologists will not say that the big bang theory means all we see == all there is. but the layman will
so serious astronomers have to emphasize the point
so religious prejudice does not color popular perception of science
it's not a strawman, it's not confined to my argument, it's not confined to slashdot
it's common perception
many if not most people, laymen if not astrophysicists and cosmologists, understand the big bang theory equals genesis from the bible/ torah/ quran: a single point from which all things sprung, no time and no space beforehand
so we have to at least emphasize it does not
we can not ignore the assumptions that take root in popular media and imagination
some sort of local expansion phenomenon, rapid even, does not disprove (or prove) a steady state universe
but this is not what most people believe or understand
so we must endeavour to clarify the bad assumption when dealing with popular perceptions. the common assumption is that the big bang theory excludes the possibility of a steady state
i am not asking people to embrace steady state. i am not asking people to reject big bang
i am asking people to understand there is no proof one way or another. and i am asking people especially to clarify that the big bang does not equal (it could equal, but we don't know) all there is, merely all we currently know
steady state is very much still a possibility
finally, i ask people to consider that assuming all we know == all there is a common story told time and time again in the history of science. it is a simple human weakness, egocentrism
then we have no disagreement
but i am sorry to inform you that many if not most people, laymen if not astrophysicists and cosmologists, understand the big bang theory equals genesis from the bible/ torah/ quran: a single point from which all things sprung, no time and no space beforehand
so we have to at least emphasize it does not
we can not ignore the assumptions that take root in popular media and imagination
so yes, as you say some sort of local expansion phenomenon, rapid even, does not disprove (or prove) a steady state universe. thank you
but this is not what most people believe or understand
we must endeavour to clarify the bad assumption when dealing with popular perceptions. the common assumption is that the big bang theory excludes the possibility of a steady state
nothing you said contradicts anything i said
you seem to be reacting to the use of my term "cheat sheet," which is a turn of phrase that you are placing extra meaning into that i did not imply. you are reacting to that extra assumed meaning
because from where i am sitting, we are in perfect agreement
so i apologize for using an inexact phrase
i am not saying the steady state theory is correct. i am saying we cannot say the big bang theory is authoritatively correct
everything about the big bang theory proves local expansion, not necessarily all expansion
i am simply saying that we have no proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
which has been a common fallacy throughout the history of science, especially astronomy. it's egocentrism, a simple common human weakness
can you tell me conclusively that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is?
you can't. you really can't. simply because we cannot peer beyond the CBE. that proves there is nothing beyond? there is no proof there IS something beyond. but there is no proof there isn't, either
i am not asking you to discard the big bang theory
i am not asking you to embrace the steady state theory
i am asking you to stop believing, falsely, that we have authoritative proof that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
that's being a quack?
the evidence you speak of neither is conclusively for the big bang theory (nor against it)
expansion could be a "local" phenomenon (on the order of billions of light years across), like the the crest and trough of waves. the CBE could simply describe an ancient local phenomenon that delineates the edge of what we can see
otherwise, this is the only difference in play here:
1. steady state theory simply says that the edge of all we see != the edge of all there is
2. the big bang theory simply says that the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is
there is no proof for or against either at this time
but, there is this on my side of the argument here:
in the history of science, there is a failed assumption that crops up time and time again, especially in astronomy: that the edge of all we can see == the edge of all there is
it's a simple human weakness: egocentrism
i am well aware of quackery in the history of science and the role of prideful ignorance in stubbornly and blindly denying evidence
but i ask you to see the evidence that what you say argues for the big bang conclusively does not at all, on the central question we are discussing here, that the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is
it argues for expansion, yes
CBE is truly important and means something
but there is nothing that says the edge of all we see == the edge of all there is. our evidence does not prove that
and that is simply the same fallacy we have fallen for in the history of science time and again
you can level such nitpicking at any movie ever
pick your favorite movie in your mind
i can level a dozen same whiny self-important "devastating" opinions at it
the simple fact is that there are billion ok movies, and a few that are truly awful, mostly on technical terms. that's it. the movies you and i might call great is simply trendy subjectivity that will come and go over time
your opinion simply is not as important nor authoritative as you imagine it is. that's just a blind ego talking
but people like to come in as some sort of self-imagined heavy authority on the quality of movies or lack thereof because it fills them with a sense of importance missing from mediocre lives
watch movies, enjoy them
no one gives a fuck about your common shallow opinions, and they carry no weight
the expansion we see is simply a local phenomenon ("local" being many billions of light years across) like the crest and trough of waves on the open ocean. the CBE is a phenomenon that happened a long time ago "locally", and delineates the edge of what we can see
that's just a theory
but it's no worse of a theory than the idea that there is a big bang that encompasses the entire universe, not just what we can see
why is the edge of what we can see = to the edge of everything, period?
proof? the "proof" is a residual prejudice from abrahamic religion in our recent history
i'm not a quack. i am well aware of the history of science and the quackery that has come and gone. i listed such quackery in my comment above
i ask you to conform rigidly to the scientific method and tell me why, with proof, that you are certain that the edge of what we can see = the edge of all that exists
you can't
i am asking you to accept this: it's a deficit of human ego to posit that all we know is all there is
if you are aware of the history of science, note that this is an assumption that has driven discarded beliefs and failed theories constantly overturned in the history of science, geography, and especially astronomy
based on that simple failure time and again in the history of science, i think it's pretty safe to say that the edge of what we know does not equal the edge of everything, period. the big bang is yet the latest iteration of this human weakness, this bias of ego, this assumption that has failed time and time again
a lot of what popular perception and popular press calls cosmology and astrophysics is pseudoscience
string theory
dark energy
even the big bang theory, commonly accepted, was formulated by a belgian priest: it's basically genesis from the bible. someone stuck abrahamic religion in the middle of "science" and no one seems to question the shaky foundations. it's just put out there without doubt or question according to popular perception and popular press. there's a lot of ways the big bang theory can be wrong and the universe is actually steady state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
that being said, there is nothing wrong with sketchy theories on the edge of our awareness and our evidence, even fanciful theories on very shaky grounds. because we simply do our best at trying to understand what is going on. nothing wrong with "crazy" theories. as long as we are willing to shuffle our theories on the edge of perception dramatically when we get new evidence
but we need to place them in a separate realm, and not consider them having the same weight as serious, multiply-proven, established, and mundane mainstream scientific theories. they are more like cool trendy academic ideas that come and go over time, nothing more
like phlogiston or lamarckism or phrenology from eras past, or aether as you say
dark energy is just a cheat sheet for an empty area of the page we don't understand (yet), we only have very vague guesses. it cannot be taken very seriously, but its fun to play thought games with it. as long as we keep the discipline of the scientific method, and understand we are are being very preliminary, mostly just mental masturbation
most cosmologists and astrophysicists understand this
but they should be aware that popular perception and popular press does not, and thinks we are talking about these far out fanciful concepts with the same gravitas as the theory of gravity or the science of main sequence stars
exactly
the opinions are usually predicated on issues that have nothing to do with the movie, or have to do with the movie, but are obsessed with stupid details
for example: people bellow hatred for the scene in indiana jones 4 where he survives a nuclear blast in a refrigerator
as if the first 3 movies were models of realism, or as if realism is the point in going to see an indiana jones movie
most movies are ok. if they stink, you forget about them. not talk about them constantly. if someone has a loud, boorish, shallow opinion they need to trumpet like it's life or death, it tells you the quality of the opinion is low
the film is fine
people feel entitled to dramatic opinions about mediocre topics
criminal masterminds will always get guns. and use them wisely
we're not talking about criminal masterminds. we're talking about casual hotheads. not trying very jhard in life. denied easy guns, what do they do? they simply don't use them. proof:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
now tell me again why you want to make it easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get them? why that is good for society?
well let's say you are correct about me. should i be able to get a gun easily without any training? you seem to think so
you can pass a law saying only pink bubble gum can be used to fix windshield wipers, but it doesn't mean shit if you don't enforce it. we only compare the usa to its social and economic peers, countries who actually enforce the laws they pass
nevermind that all the fucking guns used by narcothugs in mexico ARE PURCHASED IN THE USA. not exactly a good example, moron: we are the problem in mexico, not just the usa. our easy guns create mass murder in the usa AND mexico