Again, the weighting is different for myself and on behalf of my kids. This isn't about me so much as it is about them. That's my job, to put them first.
What you're describing is effectively the opposite of 'think of the children'. That phrase is used to create a protective bubble around the world in the hopes of keeping every hypothetical kid safe. As you've correctly surmised, that isn't my position at all. Other parents can and should hopefully look out for their own kids in the manner they see fit.
Nope, not talking about officers, but politicians. I'm sorry if this isn't silly enough for you, but it is the case.
To your original question, I'd rather raise Benjamin Franklin. Insult him all you'd like, but his contributions to America are equally as legendary as anyone else from that time, and he wasn't ever running headlong into cannon fire.
You're absolutely correct in that I'd weigh the risks. That was rather my original point, actually. The 'one hundred' is hyperbole, to be sure, just to illustrate my point.
I would add, though, that with the kids in tow, I weight things heavily towards their protection.
I still feel that this extraordinarily easy to say knowing full well the outcome. If you cannot imagine any possible ways that this could have gone wrong - well I wish I could live in that world. But I can't. It's good that you can, and I'll just leave you to that, rather than occupy any more of your time.
How? I'm only advocating how I'd handle my own kids. That phenomenon is what you get when you start interfering with other people's kids. All I said was I felt sorry for them, not that the guy needed any form of intervention.
Please don't make racist remarks. But yes, I'd rather raise Benjamin Franklin than George Washington. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If that's sick to you, then I now know how much weight to give your opinions, don't I?
For you to look down on military service is both disrespectful to those who serve as well as wholly ignorant of history. Do you look down on George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, etc?
I do not look down on those who serve, I just expect better choices from my kids. There's something to be said for laying one's life on the line, but I would rather see my own kids contribute in other ways. They could be the ones telling the troops where to go, rather than being the grunts stopping bullets, and I'd be quite proud of them.
First of all, please do not assume that you're the first person on the internet to ever lob an insult my way. You're just wasting your breath. I simply do not know enough about you to put any weight into your assessment, and we're both wasting a lot of time due to your efforts. Please bear this in mind, and consider the wasted electrons going forward... Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
Nobody ever climbed a mountain without getting a couple blisters.
Climbing mountains is stupid in just about every single case, so that's actually a fitting example. So you've climbed the mountain and you have the scars to prove it. The rest of us are doing things that actually matter more than your temporary ego boost. Who's the real winner and loser here? I'm not against doing the right thing, not in the least. I just advocate doing the right thing when it is not stupid to do so, wherever possible. Climbing over a mountain you could easily go around is a prime example.
In the interest of full disclosure, if my kids join the armed forces, I will kick some ass. So yeah, I probably would. They can do a lot more with their lifetimes than save a single life here or there.
I guess I just didn't read it that way. Again, though, if he was 'just putzing' then why ask. Just do it. No, it seemed more important to the poster than just a throw-away hobby project. But again, maybe I read that into it.
The children! Won't anybody think of the children!
Yeah, no. Don't pull that crap on my kids. I have, and will protect, the right to defend them to the best of my ability. Your ridicule is misplaced, and is likewise in poor taste. I'm not advocating sweeping legislative change in order to keep kids safe from sleeping drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
You used the same word four times. Tautological, much?
I'm totally okay with that gap. For every Washington, dozens if not hundreds of corpses filled battlefield graves. Those are poor odds.
Again, the weighting is different for myself and on behalf of my kids. This isn't about me so much as it is about them. That's my job, to put them first.
No, no. I'm quite happy with you taking your contributions elsewhere, thanks.
What you're describing is effectively the opposite of 'think of the children'. That phrase is used to create a protective bubble around the world in the hopes of keeping every hypothetical kid safe. As you've correctly surmised, that isn't my position at all. Other parents can and should hopefully look out for their own kids in the manner they see fit.
Nope, not talking about officers, but politicians. I'm sorry if this isn't silly enough for you, but it is the case.
To your original question, I'd rather raise Benjamin Franklin. Insult him all you'd like, but his contributions to America are equally as legendary as anyone else from that time, and he wasn't ever running headlong into cannon fire.
You're absolutely correct in that I'd weigh the risks. That was rather my original point, actually. The 'one hundred' is hyperbole, to be sure, just to illustrate my point.
I would add, though, that with the kids in tow, I weight things heavily towards their protection.
Right, because that's the only thing I said.
I still feel that this extraordinarily easy to say knowing full well the outcome. If you cannot imagine any possible ways that this could have gone wrong - well I wish I could live in that world. But I can't. It's good that you can, and I'll just leave you to that, rather than occupy any more of your time.
How? I'm only advocating how I'd handle my own kids. That phenomenon is what you get when you start interfering with other people's kids. All I said was I felt sorry for them, not that the guy needed any form of intervention.
There's a distinct disconnect.
Please don't make racist remarks. But yes, I'd rather raise Benjamin Franklin than George Washington. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If that's sick to you, then I now know how much weight to give your opinions, don't I?
For you to look down on military service is both disrespectful to those who serve as well as wholly ignorant of history. Do you look down on George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, etc?
I do not look down on those who serve, I just expect better choices from my kids. There's something to be said for laying one's life on the line, but I would rather see my own kids contribute in other ways. They could be the ones telling the troops where to go, rather than being the grunts stopping bullets, and I'd be quite proud of them.
You're either really reaching or are using the wrong words.
First of all, please do not assume that you're the first person on the internet to ever lob an insult my way. You're just wasting your breath. I simply do not know enough about you to put any weight into your assessment, and we're both wasting a lot of time due to your efforts. Please bear this in mind, and consider the wasted electrons going forward... Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
Nobody ever climbed a mountain without getting a couple blisters.
Climbing mountains is stupid in just about every single case, so that's actually a fitting example. So you've climbed the mountain and you have the scars to prove it. The rest of us are doing things that actually matter more than your temporary ego boost. Who's the real winner and loser here? I'm not against doing the right thing, not in the least. I just advocate doing the right thing when it is not stupid to do so, wherever possible. Climbing over a mountain you could easily go around is a prime example.
Plus, isn't some form of electricity involved?
Actually, I agree. They're awesome kids. Thanks!
This. Thanks!
He may have merely been drunk.
In the interest of full disclosure, if my kids join the armed forces, I will kick some ass. So yeah, I probably would. They can do a lot more with their lifetimes than save a single life here or there.
I guess I just didn't read it that way. Again, though, if he was 'just putzing' then why ask. Just do it. No, it seemed more important to the poster than just a throw-away hobby project. But again, maybe I read that into it.
Homonyms are fun! 'Your performance' is not equivalent to the performance of your hardware, and I assume you well know that.
he was flat-out already, so no problem here.
That was an assumption, and that call is easy to make knowing all the facts. Can you imagine no other scenario which would have complicated things?
The children! Won't anybody think of the children!
Yeah, no. Don't pull that crap on my kids. I have, and will protect, the right to defend them to the best of my ability. Your ridicule is misplaced, and is likewise in poor taste. I'm not advocating sweeping legislative change in order to keep kids safe from sleeping drivers.
Same-as, as far as I'm concerned. I'd easily kill one hundred to save my own kid. Color me weird, but there it is.
What about the human operating the other vehicle?