Two of these are the same articles I mentioned, and the wired blurb has no additional sources.
Each of these articles either is or cites the same anonymous editorial from the detroit paper or a post on the free reupblic as their sole source... a rabidly conservatice website and editorial whose subtitle is "Are they !#$!ing idiots?"...hardly a non-biased source. I would like to hear something from a bill, a lawmaker,...perhaps a reputable news source? Hell, even a non-anonymous editorial would be better. Seriously, it seems like I could publish an anonymous editorial and say pretty much anything I'd like. I'm not saying this isn't actually happening, but so far I've seen no reason to believe it is.
Before we go too far with this story... are there any other sources about this other than a link to the free republic, a rabidly conservative site and an unsigned editorial? I'd really like to know what the details of this case are from reputable sources.
Why does this need to be a black and white scenario? In some ways, chimps are more human like than some retarded humans, and yet they are subject to torture and other inhumane treatment. In other ways, chimps can never be a part of human society in that they lack our more developed cognition and social skills. Simply put, they are not mice, and they are not humans, so you can't treat them as one or the other.
yeah, cause they waive their terrorist-detector over all the detainees first to make sure they're terrorists before they torture them. Oh! and the ends have certainly justified the means, haven't they! I mean, we're all so much freer and safer, and Iraq is a beautiful paradise! Hey, why don't you book your next vacation for Baghdad, we could use a few less blathering idiots voting in the states.
it's kind of difficult to mow someone down with a car and get away with it. Even with that, I don't exactly trust other people not to mow me down with their car. That's why I'm a very careful pedestrian.
There's no obsession with handguns in america? He couldn't be "more wrong?" Are we living in the same country? What percentage of movies that we produce *don't* have a gun in them at some point?...there's other facets of *freedom* than simply owning guns.
You're oversimplifying the situation, and you're smart enough to know it.
Should we ban the use of the automobile because 4 times as many people die from its use as from the use of firearms, which you claim are a "source of terror" in America? You're ignoring the cost-benefit analyis of owning guns vs having cars. It's obviously more detrimental to throw away our transportation system than guns. England banned guns, and obviously they havent decended into the chaos that giving up roads would lead to.
250,000 die per year because ambulances can't arrive to the hospital on time. Conclude as you wish from this (hospital is too far away? roads are too crowded? ambulances should have more life-saving equipment on-board? all of the above?)
All of the above. What's your point?
430,000 die per year due to smoking-related causes. Should we ban smoking, simply because people die from it?
In a limited way, yes. There is little social value to be gained from allowing smoking. Even most smokers will tell you that; that's why the public smoking bans have been such a success. An outright ban would infringe on peoples right to kill themselves any way they see fit, so I wouldn't necesarily be for that (though I think it's also more complicated than just that), but that's different from the issue of people killing other people with guns.
And around 4,000 die in swimming pools. Should we ban swimming pools because people drown in them?
These people are, for the most part, neglegent, and only harm themselves. In all the other cases, they probably broke the law, or are at least punishable in a civil offense, so it's basically already illegal. Nothing left to do.
I'm actually for the right to bear arms, but it's silly to say it's the exact same situation as all these others. It's not, and its intelectually lazy to conflate them all together.
No, he's saying that criminals don't use guns to protect themselves. They use them to threaten or kill people. He's not arguing whether it's possible or even virtuous to take the guns away from them. He's just stating what they're used for....and he's right.
I have mod points, but, though i don't agree with you, I didn't mod you down. Anyone who did is a hypocrite, assuming they're a believer in individual rights. The funny thing is, I consider myself a very liberal/progressive/what-have-you sort of person, but I'm also a beliver in the second ammendment. It's not as cut and dry as "guns cause terror"; not even Michael Moore makes that connection (in bowling for columbine, he notes that canadians own as many guns as we do, and yet we have much more gun related violence).
Gag yourselves and police each other. Only then will you be free:) On the upside though, the rest of the world would actually feel a whole lot more free without the US intervening in order to "protect its interests"
...but it's politicians like Newt (the guy you'd like to have gag us), not american people in general, that like to invade other countries. While I understand you were making a joke, it's grounded in a pretty idiotic stereotype and a conflation of our people and our government. The US is a much more diverse country than most people think (or choose to realise), and you can't nail our people down to one closed-minded policy. I'm sick of people acting like the US is the only country with asshole politician problems.
lol... "demoshits". Where do you discuss politics, a fucking playground? Dude, if you have to go back 20 years just to bash democratic *voters*, you're seriously grasping at straws, and only underlining the fact that republican supporters can never take the heat; they can only throw out more attacks. The irony of the Foley case that makes it unique from the innumerable other cases of sexual impropriety (in both parties) in the government is that he broke his own law; a law he *designed* to stop people exactly like himself. That's pretty hardcore hypocrisy...
You're right, the president of the country with the greatest output of greenhouse gasses has nothing to do with a debate on global warming. I'm sure that when speaking of this as a "global problem" and saying it can only be fixed if all countries take part, he was in no way referencing the US or Bush's policies. I'm also a complete fucking idiot.
...so Bush isn't involved in environmental policy? He's not responsible for the US backing away from the kyoto treaty? It's not relevant to criticize him for this?
Slashdot Mirror
Two of these are the same articles I mentioned, and the wired blurb has no additional sources.
...hardly a non-biased source. I would like to hear something from a bill, a lawmaker, ...perhaps a reputable news source? Hell, even a non-anonymous editorial would be better. Seriously, it seems like I could publish an anonymous editorial and say pretty much anything I'd like. I'm not saying this isn't actually happening, but so far I've seen no reason to believe it is.
Each of these articles either is or cites the same anonymous editorial from the detroit paper or a post on the free reupblic as their sole source... a rabidly conservatice website and editorial whose subtitle is "Are they !#$!ing idiots?"
Before we go too far with this story... are there any other sources about this other than a link to the free republic, a rabidly conservative site and an unsigned editorial? I'd really like to know what the details of this case are from reputable sources.
Why does this need to be a black and white scenario? In some ways, chimps are more human like than some retarded humans, and yet they are subject to torture and other inhumane treatment. In other ways, chimps can never be a part of human society in that they lack our more developed cognition and social skills. Simply put, they are not mice, and they are not humans, so you can't treat them as one or the other.
The EFF would eat any such case for breakfast.
I think this is why you so frequently see characters in sci-fi movies wearing sunglasses
for the cyclowiz, that would be the hardware switch that enables/disables reprogramming
yeah, cause they waive their terrorist-detector over all the detainees first to make sure they're terrorists before they torture them. Oh! and the ends have certainly justified the means, haven't they! I mean, we're all so much freer and safer, and Iraq is a beautiful paradise! Hey, why don't you book your next vacation for Baghdad, we could use a few less blathering idiots voting in the states.
No, in the US they don't explicitly censor bloggers they don't agree with, they just mod them 'troll' until their posts are invisible.
I'll take that :)
..so you think everyone in an office building should be armed at all times?
it's kind of difficult to mow someone down with a car and get away with it. Even with that, I don't exactly trust other people not to mow me down with their car. That's why I'm a very careful pedestrian.
There's no obsession with handguns in america? He couldn't be "more wrong?" Are we living in the same country? What percentage of movies that we produce *don't* have a gun in them at some point? ...there's other facets of *freedom* than simply owning guns.
Should we ban the use of the automobile because 4 times as many people die from its use as from the use of firearms, which you claim are a "source of terror" in America?
You're ignoring the cost-benefit analyis of owning guns vs having cars. It's obviously more detrimental to throw away our transportation system than guns. England banned guns, and obviously they havent decended into the chaos that giving up roads would lead to.
All of the above. What's your point?
In a limited way, yes. There is little social value to be gained from allowing smoking. Even most smokers will tell you that; that's why the public smoking bans have been such a success. An outright ban would infringe on peoples right to kill themselves any way they see fit, so I wouldn't necesarily be for that (though I think it's also more complicated than just that), but that's different from the issue of people killing other people with guns.
These people are, for the most part, neglegent, and only harm themselves. In all the other cases, they probably broke the law, or are at least punishable in a civil offense, so it's basically already illegal. Nothing left to do.
I'm actually for the right to bear arms, but it's silly to say it's the exact same situation as all these others. It's not, and its intelectually lazy to conflate them all together.
So... you're implying that the he likes to kill people? Do you honestly believe this?
Guns are both for killing and defending. They're not *only* for defending. That's all the parent is getting at.
No, he's saying that criminals don't use guns to protect themselves. They use them to threaten or kill people. He's not arguing whether it's possible or even virtuous to take the guns away from them. He's just stating what they're used for. ...and he's right.
I have mod points, but, though i don't agree with you, I didn't mod you down. Anyone who did is a hypocrite, assuming they're a believer in individual rights. The funny thing is, I consider myself a very liberal/progressive/what-have-you sort of person, but I'm also a beliver in the second ammendment. It's not as cut and dry as "guns cause terror"; not even Michael Moore makes that connection (in bowling for columbine, he notes that canadians own as many guns as we do, and yet we have much more gun related violence).
I've been using dodgeit for a long time. It rocks!
agreed, and thanks :)
lol... "demoshits". Where do you discuss politics, a fucking playground? Dude, if you have to go back 20 years just to bash democratic *voters*, you're seriously grasping at straws, and only underlining the fact that republican supporters can never take the heat; they can only throw out more attacks. The irony of the Foley case that makes it unique from the innumerable other cases of sexual impropriety (in both parties) in the government is that he broke his own law; a law he *designed* to stop people exactly like himself. That's pretty hardcore hypocrisy...
If you liked that, you should try this link: cenSEARCHip
*whooosh*
You're right, the president of the country with the greatest output of greenhouse gasses has nothing to do with a debate on global warming. I'm sure that when speaking of this as a "global problem" and saying it can only be fixed if all countries take part, he was in no way referencing the US or Bush's policies. I'm also a complete fucking idiot.
...so Bush isn't involved in environmental policy? He's not responsible for the US backing away from the kyoto treaty? It's not relevant to criticize him for this?