oh, haha, oops: wrong dipshit....and I'd figure a libertarian would be all for the buildup of independent private enterprise. Do you think a malaysian's sole purpose in life is to build you plastic mickey mouse toys? Who says they can't develop an economy of their own? I'll tell you one thing: it's not going to happen while they're working 80 hours a week for slave wages.
The question wasn't whether $0.02 is better than $0.00 or not, so this is irrelevant. I didn't advocate zero support, though you imply that I did. I won't repeat myself, I'll just state that I was correct when I said you wouldn't pay attention to my argument.
Actually, one of the measures is in how they slaughter them. It's still somewhat violent, but instant and painless (a hydraulic piston to the back of the head). There were many other improvements as well, especially in their quality of living.
By the way, looking at the responses to my post where *I* assert that PETA trolls is extremely ironic. I'm not even supporting them, and yet I get these ridiculous trolls. It's funny, I actually quite appreciate it in a way, since I'm doing research on the effects of trolling, and one of my major assertions is that it specifically targets progressive movements. I think it's mostly because the points of these movements necessarily require careful reflection to understand, and mindless limbaugh-esque retorts, so incorperated in trolling, are honestly an effective means of washing over such subtle arguments to your average schlub.
Seriously, dude, do you have to try this hard to insult or anger me over... not supporting PETA? Are you surprised that PETA has become what it is when they constantly have to deal with assholes like you? Are you that afraid of "hippies"? Or do you just get off on trolling?
First of all, none of the things you listed are examples of trolling, so I can already guess how much of my reply you'll pay attention to. Actually, it makes your flame quite ironic. So they "supporst" fire bombing, "the want humans to die for animals", and they support "making animals be like humans"? (btw, it's called anthropomorphising, and the "making" in this case is figurative). Please link to their statements of support for such activities, or some record of them lending support to them. So you must feel that anti-abortion groups should be listed as terrorist groups as well, I'd imagine, since they actually have resorted to killing people. If you're this afraid of any animal activists, you're as retarded as the idiots in the last story.
If constant torture makes the meat taste better, I fully support it.
That's not
choosing between an entire species going extinct or saving the life of a 65 year old dude
It's trolling.
Besides, extinction is a different issue completely. There isn't necessarily pain and suffering in becoming extinct. Depending on the species, I'd agree with you. However, pain and suffering is something that is experienced relatively by both humans and many animals. I also don't buy that you 100% value human pleasure over animal suffering. many like to make such statements, but they're disingenuous, unless you would honestly support such things as the anal rape of puppies in order to get off. Funny thing is, that's not even a hypothetical example...
Putting money in their pocket would be one way, and honestly as stupid as it sounds, it's a lot less stupid than the idea of giving them 2 cents for building an iPod if your intention is to actually help these people. *Lending* money to poorer countries is often a good way to help them build an economy and create real jobs. For instance, funding a project to build sanitation systems creates jobs for those who will be building it and a livable situtation where a viable economy can be built. Foreign (american or otherwise) companies exploiting people through sweatshops does not build a viable economy in a 3rd world country; it makes them even more dependant on foreign companies to run their economy. If you don't realize the simple fact that companies outsource labor in order to be able to pay their workers *less*, then you're not even worth talking to.
Honestly, I don't know a lot about greenpeace, and I agree with you about what PETA has become, but honestly they still have a lot of power, and still do some good with it. They've managed to force mcdonalds to make a lot of changes in how their farms are run, for instance, so that the animals are treated better.
It is sad, though, that all PETA seems to do anymore is troll...
Apple has already generously moved manufacturing to other countries so the poorest of people could have jobs.
I don't know what disturbs me more: that you actually believe that this is a company's motive for outsourcing, or that someone modded you "insightful".
There are more direct ways to support people than buying an ipod (or two) they assembled for a few pennies.
Yeah... my first reaction to this story was "what the fuck?!" My second reaction was "...oh. Sugar Land, TX. The same people who brought us Tom DeLay. This actually somewhat makes sense."
I don't live in ohio anymore, but I lived in columbus during the 2004 elections, and the thing that bothered me the most was the lines. I lived in a black neighborhood and waited for more than 3 hours to vote. They had 3 machines running. I remember that 2 years prior there were 7 machines and practically no line. Also, my boss, who lives in a more conservative rural area, had 7 machines and no line. I don't know what kind of mistakes or non-mistakes led to that happening, but to me, that was pretty bad. Why would they move the machines *out* of my district, when we clearly needed them?
you're cynical. Do you honestly think that no one (or perhaps very few) on slashdot, a hub for politically minded technology geeks, cares about how electronic voting is implemented, and are only upset that a democrat wasn't elected in the last election? Let me rephrase: you're absurdly cynical. Cynical would be assuming that a lot of people don't care if their votes are counted or not, not the vast majority of people who are already likely to care.
that's a good point. Honestly, though... I still can't figure out why they didn't immediately shut down campus after that dorm shooting... It's terrible.
I would actually tend to agree, except that there are a lot of places you can't bring a concealed weapon (hospitals, many universities, many privately owned businesses). In fact, it's a felony to bring a handgun into a place that serves alcohol in ohio. So, keeping it on your 24/7 is kind of problematic, legally... And I do agree with the no guns + alcohol law; it makes sense.
dude, as far as putting words in your mouth goes, I'd say I was a lot fairer than you were to the grandparent when you claimed he was drawing a caricature of armed citizens as "twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes" by asking "You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?". Besides, he wasn't even talking about your average "armed citizens", but any citizen in a completely armed society, which would then include all citizens. Anyway, this is all besides the point.
Besides, I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the blanket statement "We can think as well as you can, and about the same things" about "armed citizens", and I was merely pointing out that, should this be interpreted as including all armed citizens (which isn't unreasonable from your phrasing), it would be pretty silly.
The truth is, we'd all have to be pretty highly trained to deal with random situations, such as these, effectively, especially considering that you can never be truly "prepared", unless you're crazy paranoid. When random psycho opens the door to your classroom and starts shooting at you, you don't have a hell of a lot of time to react, and given that this sort of occurrence happens to about 1/1,000,000 people in this country, odds are you're not expecting it.... I'd honestly hope. And what I think both my and the grandparent's point is (though he didn't state it very well), arming everyone is probably more likely to cause more problems with some of those 1,000,000 people than it is going to solve for the one who gets attacked by random psycho and probably isn't able to respond in time to save themselves anyway.
Of course, this isn't to say that I'm for banning guns or anything like that. I think they're handy for people who live in dangerous places. I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.
So all armed citizens are perfectly stable then? If I hand a gun to a "twiching bundle of indiscriminate reflexes", will he suddenly cease to be such? It only takes one... Besides, the best description I've heard of the scene at VT is "complete chaos". Please don't tell me that defending yourself or others in this situation is not a trying endeavor.
as a foreigner you probably don't realize how widespread the black market is in a country the size of the US, either. There is no simple solution to stopping crimes like this, but how does allowing people to protect themselves seem so strange to you? The guns didn't magically kill people by themselves, some asshole was wielding them. Assuming you're not a crazy asshole, having a gun might not hurt, eh? Most americans feel that it is your right to be able to defend yourself with a force equal to what you're threatened with.
I never said I'm for banning guns. In fact, I'm in support of conceal/carry laws (though I think a permit should be required). People think *I'm* a nut for thinking that arming yourself around OSU is a good idea. I just find the idea that people would be bringing guns to class at 9am in blacksburg virginia to be strange, regardless of what laws they have, especially considering my experiences at a much much more dangerous college (we'd have a student or two killed almost every year, and countless assaults/rapes).
Moore argues that high gun ownership is not responsible for violence in America, and instead that there must be something about the structure of American society, the American psyche or the media that makes the nation uniquely prone to high rates of murder and shootings. In support of his claims, Moore argues that Canadian gun ownership levels are comparable to those of the U.S.
What I thought was most interesting about the movie was that he doesn't seem to offer any real advice as to how to solve this problem; just some insight into why we have it. Sort of the opposite of this amateur debate everyone seems to be having on this story about a massacre that happened only hours earlier today...
well, you can't exactly grow guns, so it's not that simple, but that's not to say you're incorrect either. It's odd how everyone in a gun debate oversimplifies everything pretending they have the solution to a very complicated problem...
...do people at your school seriously bring guns to class? OSU didn't have a gun policy and was in a state with a conceal/carry law without requiring a permit. Pretty much as lax as possible. Yet, no one I nor any of my friends knew *ever* brought a gun to class, and this is in an urban campus in a relatively shitty part of a relatively big city. So, basically, it doesn't matter what law virginia tech had. Frankly, I'd be frightened of anyone so worried about a random massacre happening to them that they feel they need to carry a gun around in the middle of the morning to every class they go to in a school in some backwoods town that almost never sees a murder and has 1/4 of the countries per-capita level of violent crime.
Slashdot Mirror
oh, haha, oops: wrong dipshit. ...and I'd figure a libertarian would be all for the buildup of independent private enterprise. Do you think a malaysian's sole purpose in life is to build you plastic mickey mouse toys? Who says they can't develop an economy of their own? I'll tell you one thing: it's not going to happen while they're working 80 hours a week for slave wages.
The question wasn't whether $0.02 is better than $0.00 or not, so this is irrelevant. I didn't advocate zero support, though you imply that I did. I won't repeat myself, I'll just state that I was correct when I said you wouldn't pay attention to my argument.
Actually, one of the measures is in how they slaughter them. It's still somewhat violent, but instant and painless (a hydraulic piston to the back of the head). There were many other improvements as well, especially in their quality of living.
By the way, looking at the responses to my post where *I* assert that PETA trolls is extremely ironic. I'm not even supporting them, and yet I get these ridiculous trolls. It's funny, I actually quite appreciate it in a way, since I'm doing research on the effects of trolling, and one of my major assertions is that it specifically targets progressive movements. I think it's mostly because the points of these movements necessarily require careful reflection to understand, and mindless limbaugh-esque retorts, so incorperated in trolling, are honestly an effective means of washing over such subtle arguments to your average schlub.
Seriously, dude, do you have to try this hard to insult or anger me over... not supporting PETA? Are you surprised that PETA has become what it is when they constantly have to deal with assholes like you? Are you that afraid of "hippies"? Or do you just get off on trolling?
First of all, none of the things you listed are examples of trolling, so I can already guess how much of my reply you'll pay attention to. Actually, it makes your flame quite ironic. So they "supporst" fire bombing, "the want humans to die for animals", and they support "making animals be like humans"? (btw, it's called anthropomorphising, and the "making" in this case is figurative). Please link to their statements of support for such activities, or some record of them lending support to them. So you must feel that anti-abortion groups should be listed as terrorist groups as well, I'd imagine, since they actually have resorted to killing people. If you're this afraid of any animal activists, you're as retarded as the idiots in the last story.
That's not
It's trolling.
Besides, extinction is a different issue completely. There isn't necessarily pain and suffering in becoming extinct. Depending on the species, I'd agree with you. However, pain and suffering is something that is experienced relatively by both humans and many animals. I also don't buy that you 100% value human pleasure over animal suffering. many like to make such statements, but they're disingenuous, unless you would honestly support such things as the anal rape of puppies in order to get off. Funny thing is, that's not even a hypothetical example...
PETA may troll, but they certainly don't measure up to their opponents yet, in that regard.
Putting money in their pocket would be one way, and honestly as stupid as it sounds, it's a lot less stupid than the idea of giving them 2 cents for building an iPod if your intention is to actually help these people. *Lending* money to poorer countries is often a good way to help them build an economy and create real jobs. For instance, funding a project to build sanitation systems creates jobs for those who will be building it and a livable situtation where a viable economy can be built. Foreign (american or otherwise) companies exploiting people through sweatshops does not build a viable economy in a 3rd world country; it makes them even more dependant on foreign companies to run their economy. If you don't realize the simple fact that companies outsource labor in order to be able to pay their workers *less*, then you're not even worth talking to.
Honestly, I don't know a lot about greenpeace, and I agree with you about what PETA has become, but honestly they still have a lot of power, and still do some good with it. They've managed to force mcdonalds to make a lot of changes in how their farms are run, for instance, so that the animals are treated better.
It is sad, though, that all PETA seems to do anymore is troll...
Yeah... my first reaction to this story was "what the fuck?!" My second reaction was "...oh. Sugar Land, TX. The same people who brought us Tom DeLay. This actually somewhat makes sense."
I don't live in ohio anymore, but I lived in columbus during the 2004 elections, and the thing that bothered me the most was the lines. I lived in a black neighborhood and waited for more than 3 hours to vote. They had 3 machines running. I remember that 2 years prior there were 7 machines and practically no line. Also, my boss, who lives in a more conservative rural area, had 7 machines and no line. I don't know what kind of mistakes or non-mistakes led to that happening, but to me, that was pretty bad. Why would they move the machines *out* of my district, when we clearly needed them?
my guess is no. over 100,000 votes is a lot to fuck up.
you're cynical. Do you honestly think that no one (or perhaps very few) on slashdot, a hub for politically minded technology geeks, cares about how electronic voting is implemented, and are only upset that a democrat wasn't elected in the last election? Let me rephrase: you're absurdly cynical. Cynical would be assuming that a lot of people don't care if their votes are counted or not, not the vast majority of people who are already likely to care.
that's a good point. Honestly, though... I still can't figure out why they didn't immediately shut down campus after that dorm shooting... It's terrible.
I would actually tend to agree, except that there are a lot of places you can't bring a concealed weapon (hospitals, many universities, many privately owned businesses). In fact, it's a felony to bring a handgun into a place that serves alcohol in ohio. So, keeping it on your 24/7 is kind of problematic, legally... And I do agree with the no guns + alcohol law; it makes sense.
dude, as far as putting words in your mouth goes, I'd say I was a lot fairer than you were to the grandparent when you claimed he was drawing a caricature of armed citizens as "twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes" by asking "You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?". Besides, he wasn't even talking about your average "armed citizens", but any citizen in a completely armed society, which would then include all citizens. Anyway, this is all besides the point.
Besides, I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the blanket statement "We can think as well as you can, and about the same things" about "armed citizens", and I was merely pointing out that, should this be interpreted as including all armed citizens (which isn't unreasonable from your phrasing), it would be pretty silly.
The truth is, we'd all have to be pretty highly trained to deal with random situations, such as these, effectively, especially considering that you can never be truly "prepared", unless you're crazy paranoid. When random psycho opens the door to your classroom and starts shooting at you, you don't have a hell of a lot of time to react, and given that this sort of occurrence happens to about 1/1,000,000 people in this country, odds are you're not expecting it.... I'd honestly hope. And what I think both my and the grandparent's point is (though he didn't state it very well), arming everyone is probably more likely to cause more problems with some of those 1,000,000 people than it is going to solve for the one who gets attacked by random psycho and probably isn't able to respond in time to save themselves anyway.
Of course, this isn't to say that I'm for banning guns or anything like that. I think they're handy for people who live in dangerous places. I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.
So all armed citizens are perfectly stable then? If I hand a gun to a "twiching bundle of indiscriminate reflexes", will he suddenly cease to be such? It only takes one... Besides, the best description I've heard of the scene at VT is "complete chaos". Please don't tell me that defending yourself or others in this situation is not a trying endeavor.
as a foreigner you probably don't realize how widespread the black market is in a country the size of the US, either. There is no simple solution to stopping crimes like this, but how does allowing people to protect themselves seem so strange to you? The guns didn't magically kill people by themselves, some asshole was wielding them. Assuming you're not a crazy asshole, having a gun might not hurt, eh? Most americans feel that it is your right to be able to defend yourself with a force equal to what you're threatened with.
I never said I'm for banning guns. In fact, I'm in support of conceal/carry laws (though I think a permit should be required). People think *I'm* a nut for thinking that arming yourself around OSU is a good idea. I just find the idea that people would be bringing guns to class at 9am in blacksburg virginia to be strange, regardless of what laws they have, especially considering my experiences at a much much more dangerous college (we'd have a student or two killed almost every year, and countless assaults/rapes).
What I thought was most interesting about the movie was that he doesn't seem to offer any real advice as to how to solve this problem; just some insight into why we have it. Sort of the opposite of this amateur debate everyone seems to be having on this story about a massacre that happened only hours earlier today...
well, you can't exactly grow guns, so it's not that simple, but that's not to say you're incorrect either. It's odd how everyone in a gun debate oversimplifies everything pretending they have the solution to a very complicated problem...
...do people at your school seriously bring guns to class? OSU didn't have a gun policy and was in a state with a conceal/carry law without requiring a permit. Pretty much as lax as possible. Yet, no one I nor any of my friends knew *ever* brought a gun to class, and this is in an urban campus in a relatively shitty part of a relatively big city. So, basically, it doesn't matter what law virginia tech had. Frankly, I'd be frightened of anyone so worried about a random massacre happening to them that they feel they need to carry a gun around in the middle of the morning to every class they go to in a school in some backwoods town that almost never sees a murder and has 1/4 of the countries per-capita level of violent crime.
then use encryption. It works better anyway
that's not the only problem... imagine what the virus writers will do with this one!
The link was broken for me, but I found a different one that might have the same quotes:
/ news-35/117620854957570.xml&coll=6
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base
pretty messed up...