[deep movie voice] In the not too distant future... one man.... will take on a journey... that will change the world. Jack The true story of Jack Valenti, the man who brought freedom back to America. Coming this semester to a history class near you.
Sure - all agreed on all counts. Accidental exposure isn't that big a deal (and censorship won't help), but unrestricted availability aggravates real world problems - including addiction (most teenage boys are at a higher risk for sexual addiction these days - I had to go dumpster diving for mine and hide it from the folks... lucky sob's:P ). I'm not suggesting (or advocating) the solutions the state is trying to provide, I'm suggesting that the problem (and the debate itself) can be mitigated through simple self regulation.
For example - the xxx domain for sexual (aka porn) content. Voluntarily registered by playboy, penthouse, hustler and the like - in fact, they can still post non-adult content (articles that we all love) on a.com, and the spreads on the xxx domain. I don't think most of that's too hard to classify as adult content - and this wouldn't impact anyone's freedom of speech. As an added bonus, we can still debate the merits of filtering content, morals, and porn as violence, hate-sites, etc. until we pass out but at least the obvious specters of 'porn' won't cloud the more subtle (and real) issues. Plus I can do a search for vegetables without the distraction.
and that image... I've been recovering for years. [[shudder]]
Yeah, your right - you are one smart mother. That is a fundamental truth.
Dismissing the entire argument (on/. no less) based on one obviously miss-calculated statement to emphasize a point is ludicrous. It's not even a good cop-out.
Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. um... I suppose if the entire field of Child Sexual Development is bullshit, your right. http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.h tm excerpt: There are four stages of childhood and adolescence in which the focus of the body shifts between a primary and a secondary concern. The first stage is from birth to approximately 6 years of age. The physical body is primary; and sexual interests, curiosity, arousal and behavior are spontaneously expressed unless or until the child is taught to repress or inhibit her/his pleasure orientation.
The second stage is from approximately age 6 to pubescence (approximately age 12). The physical growth ratio slows, the basic gross and fine motor coordination is accomplished and reliable and the primary attention of the child shifts to the mental realm. The desire for sexual pleasure continues; however, most children are thoughtful and discriminating about their sexual behavior and expressions. Their needs for privacy and autonomy characterize this stage.
The third stage is pubescence to early adolescence, and the age range is highly variable: approximately ages 13 to 15. As the hormones come into play, the body is once again primary, with rapid growth spurts, the development of secondary sex characteristics, sensations of increased intensity and a new awareness of the physical self and its impact on others in the social sense. Sexual behaviors respond to a stronger biological mandate, becoming a preoccupation which may be characterized by poor social judgment, high risk behavior and lack of discrimination.
The fourth stage is mid to late adolescence; and again, the age range is variable: approximately age 16+. The body growth rate slows,, the hormonal balance is achieved, the secondary sex changes are incorporated into the body image, the sexual response cycle is accommodated through masturbation or partner sex and sexual gratification is integrated into the context of a relationship.
** I never said porn was unnatural - I did say porn throws natural development off a cliff. Overstated for sure, but the point remains - Porn can be harmful to the sexual development of a child. Google 'child sexual development' for more, but some of the effects are well known and understood - desensitization, objectification, etc.
And in the past, royal families would 'keep it in the family' to protect the bloodline... that doesn't make it healthy.:D
It seems that a lot of people are just flat out unaware of the scientific reasons (well... as far as psychology is a science) behind the 'keep kids away from porn' argument.
Children do not have the cognitive maturity to understand what it is they're looking at. Exposing them to it when they are too young to understand it warps their perceptions and confuses their understanding of a relationship. This is a fundamental truth.
For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.
4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection.
Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14 (if I remember right), and it's a natural process that they go through with their peers all the way up through adulthood (19 to 22). They become progressively more curious as they get older, and willing to experiment. This provides normal healthy development, and they work it out by talking with thier peers (not you, as many parents would like to believe). Porn throws that development off a cliff - most will end up thinking that sex IS the relationship, and if they don't get it from their significant other, they get seriously confused. This confusion is manifested in everything from why doesn't he/she like me to violence (defense against rejection) and force. It also results in a fair amount of alienation from their peers (slut for girls / pervert for guys), which aggravates the confusion and reduces the pool of peers they can talk to about it (or are willing to talk to). It's also not something that works itself out when they get older, it's a belief system that's pretty hard to break.
So you see, it's not a morality thing, it's a social impact thing. Children should be protected from porn.
That doesn't mean censorship, it just means take reasonable steps to keep kids out - it's the beaded curtain at the video store or the entrance ID check at the local strip club. I'd say it's pretty simple - self regulation and common sense. If you try to pull the free speech defense when you're running a free porn site without a barrier to entry, your... screwed.
Bush is the first person with the title President of the US to wear a military uniform while in office
That may be true but I think you're taking it out of context - A flight suit is designed in part to help the human body withstand g-forces and cold temperatures, fire retardant, etc. Would you have preferred that he have a flight suit designed custom or just use one the ship had? He wasn't wearing it to present himself as a member of the military, he was doing it because it's regulation, and for safety.
If your problem is with him taking a ride on a fighter at tax payers money, that's one thing. If your problem is that he's more of a draft dodger that got special privilege from the very same military he hid from, that's something too. But if your problem is his fashion sense or adherence to tradition (one he probably didn't know about)... well, that's just silly. You should be far more concerned with his actions than his social and political incompetence.
[I'm not a democrat either... ]
Re:I'd really like to discuss this story
on
The Cult of the NDA
·
· Score: 1
[speaks through bloody mouth] Just give me the money... and I'll go away...
Interesting, but wrong - Corporations still shouldn't have any 'rights'.
The New York Times doesn't actually have 'freedom of the press' because the New York Times doesn't have a mouth, or hand, or body. Corporations are just legal business structures groups of people work within. To give those people more rights because they've collected themselves into an organization just gives them 'special privilege'... something that undermines the concept that we are all equal.
Reporters, editors, etc. all have the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. The Corporation itself is just the structure they use for organization - it doesn't deserve any more privilege than a person with a website who chooses to call themselves a reporter. [Both are still responsible for any mis-information they may spread]
With that said, the New York Times (corporation) shouldn't be allowed to call you at your home to report the news. They can provide a convenient venue in which you choose to participate or not, but calling your home is an intrusion and something we can specifically outlaw without violating the reporters right to free speech, or the newspapers freedom of the press.
The reason all rockets, missiles, spears and yes, penises (penii?), look functionally similar is because they all do pretty much the same thing: they penetrate some medium, and streamlining is a necessity
...dude. You just did a scientific analysis of the penis as weapon. It's not a weapon, it's a tool... unless you're doing scientific analysis's (analysii?), in which case it's a toy for your own personal amusement, 'cause you can bet no woman is going to come near you.
Simplistic, unfortunately more than a few grains of truth, but your confusing the 'morality' of working for the military because of how they're used, with the morality of the people you've elected who put them there.
The military is the sword arm of the leaders you elect. They are put in dangerous places to defend economic interests... on your behalf. When someone agrees to serve their country, they're doing so with the hope that the people they serve have had the wisdom to choose leaders who will do the bidding of the people. If that's not the case, it's not the military's fault. Most everyone in the military is keeping their word to you. They promised to serve you, defend the constitution and do the will of the people - and that will is directed by our elected leaders. They might be optimistic, or worst case gullible, but at least they've dedicated themselves to the idea that they can make a difference.
Now... when you consider that less than half of the population of the United States bothers to vote in a presidential election (much less for their state and local leaders), you can see that the problem is clearly the agnostic nature of the republic itself. To me, I think anyone who won't bother to vote (and vote with their conscience) doesn't deserve the dedication or protection of the police, much less the military... but I'm kind of a hard ass that way.
Oh yeah, one more thing - when the US was formed, the guys who did it mutually pledge[d] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. So I say, if you're in the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans, America should be operating on your dime. Not completely of course, but those people should honor the sacrifices of those who made their fortunes possible by protecting the system that gave them that opportunity.
oh for hell's sake, pull your head out of the dark stink.
If he's part of the problem so are you. He never said it was acceptable, he said it's going to happen. Burying your head in the sand and blaming politics or the world for it won't slow it down, but you're sure as hell willing to try. "Let's all get along!" you'll say... what a load. Millions die every year all over Africa alone from wars 'we' (you know, the country that everybody hates) have nothing to do with (and ain't it funny how they hate us for that too). Iran and Iraq made war for some 20 years with very little prodding from us [very little mind you, not 'no prodding']. The Balkans region has been warring for _centuries_... before we were even a country to hate.
War happens. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's social injustice, sometimes it's a big f'ing misunderstanding, but it happens. A lot. And if you've even seen pictures of it, you'll know that you can't ignore it, and you'd better damn well be prepared for it or you'll be on the side that gets buried, burned or blown to hell.
So let me wrap up in this little temper tantrum of mine by saying - you're a fool. While it would be nice if everyone would settle down and talk about it, not every does. More often than not they will, but sometimes they'd rather just kill you. And your family. and your neighbors, friends or just the folks standing next to you for being there. It's easier that way, and sometimes just more FUN. Just ask Milosevic... I'll bet that guy hates us too.
Thank you for that return to "Bowling for Columbine" (I saw it last weekend too).:)
While your comments ring true, the argument about guns has been effectively hijacked by fear. We aren't talking about rights anymore, we're talking about consequences. We have over the course of the last 20 years become terrified of guns. But guns don't kill people, they are used to kill people. They're used for a lot of other things too, but the argument has been made, and by God we won't look beyond that fear - GUNS... kill people.
The real problem is that we fear our neighbors. We're afraid of the government, corporations, lawsuits, politicians, the media, Hollywood, and cholesterol. Fear. Fear is eating us inside out, and we are, little by little giving into that fear. Currently we're afraid of guns, or more accurately, who ELSE might have or get their hands on a gun. We have lost so much faith in our own countrymen that we've already resorted to spying on them. And now that we're there, the only steps left to ensure that our fears are put to rest is by disarming them. Which logically produces only one conclusion - someone will have the authority to tell others what's right and what's wrong. It might be the police, it might be the military, but it won't be you - a citizen of the country. I guess it really depends on whether or not you think that's a good thing. To the people who are about to lose their fire arms I'll bet they feel a lot like hardened democrats felt the day we landed in Iraq. Subverted, if not downright violated.
Fear is a far more powerful weapon than a fire arm, and anytime you let fear play a part in your decision about what's right and what's wrong, you've already made the wrong decision. I am not afraid of fire arms, and I am not willing to surrender everyone's right based on your fear. I am not afraid. I refuse to be afraid of my neighbors, corporations, politicians, terrorists or processed fat. I am willing to risk my life every day by walking out into a country filled with people who own fire arms. And I'm willing to do it to preserve the freedom my country promised. In fact, I think we should embrace this freedom with welcome arms and open hearts. Which is how we should be treating our neighbors. Both here and internationally.
And for the record... I own an antique shotgun that I can't buy shells for (only takes lead shot). Yes, that's right, I don't own a weapon that will fire a single bullet.
Sgt_Jake
PS - There was this little bald guy that kicked the entire British empire out of his poor country...and never lifted a gun or sword or any weapon to do it. Which means nothing when you think about it (I'm not being an ass here, don't react just yet) - Would having the right to have a weapon changed things for him at all? If you said yes, your presuming that Gandhi would have exercised that right. I don't think he would have. In fact, I think that if he'd wanted weapons he could have had them in a half a heart beat. What's important is that Gandhi wasn't afraid of the British, and they had guns. That's what changed their world. Why should we then, be afraid of our own neighbors because they have guns?
LSD more often sparks insight or provides a novel point of view rather than causing outright delusions
Yeah... like that you can fly. That's turned out to be an insightful, and quite a novel point of view for many of the people it's killed. Case in point - "I'm not a cat, YOUR delusional!" - That's actual quote from a friend of mine as he lept from the 2nd story deck. Not killed, quite funny, but how appropriate for this discussion. Yes, on LSD.
LSD is dangerous because it's unpredictable, even in experienced users. While you've obviously done more than a passing review of the effects, your implication ignors the fact that you're poking your brain with a chemical stick to see what it'll do next... knowing full well that you don't, in fact, know what it'll do next. That's just stupid.
My personal favorite was the graphical boxed-helix as he compiled the worm/virus. 'cause, you know, as soon as you can make that last stick the right color, the whole thing'll flash a few times and do whatever you want it to. That's my favorite part of coding anyway...
Derch, do you have any idea how bigoted and (in fact) self righteous your comment was?
Women who perpetuate the 'I like diamonds' myth are more likely found in liberal circles - models, fashion, entertainment and finance (yes, finance is a very liberal circle - your thinking of CEO's of major non-media corporations like oil and gas industries). If you're a woman, one would hope that you're at least as intelligent as you pretend to be.
While certainly one would find anti-materialists in the ACLU, Amnesty groups, and in local arts circles (and that's a f'ing cop out, any artist would sell their work for millions if they could - and then buy a diamond studded frame or stand for their personal favorite work), but you'll also find plenty of the same dedicated classes of 'money isn't everything' folks in religious, family oriented or athletic groups (thus, conservative and agnostic politicals).
In short Derch - quit suggesting that 'group A(women? liberals?)' is better than 'group B (men? conservatives?)'. My wife is smarter than you, and she'd kick _your_ ass for making women look stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you watch movies?
[deep movie voice] In the not too distant future... one man.... will take on a journey... that will change the world.
Jack
The true story of Jack Valenti, the man who brought freedom back to America. Coming this semester to a history class near you.
Who moderated this statement as "Flamebait"? It's absolutely true and I hope you get metamodded to hell
User 946532 - "diebold". Strange though, I can't seem to find a record of that user now...
More of a 'zipping', or maybe a low variable 'humming' noise. Unless you go really fast in which case it becomes a screeching like noise.
God, don't you people ever watch 'stargate'?
-- Firefly DVD's are out December 9th I hear.
Sure - all agreed on all counts. Accidental exposure isn't that big a deal (and censorship won't help), but unrestricted availability aggravates real world problems - including addiction (most teenage boys are at a higher risk for sexual addiction these days - I had to go dumpster diving for mine and hide it from the folks... lucky sob's :P ). I'm not suggesting (or advocating) the solutions the state is trying to provide, I'm suggesting that the problem (and the debate itself) can be mitigated through simple self regulation.
.com, and the spreads on the xxx domain. I don't think most of that's too hard to classify as adult content - and this wouldn't impact anyone's freedom of speech.
For example - the xxx domain for sexual (aka porn) content. Voluntarily registered by playboy, penthouse, hustler and the like - in fact, they can still post non-adult content (articles that we all love) on a
As an added bonus, we can still debate the merits of filtering content, morals, and porn as violence, hate-sites, etc. until we pass out but at least the obvious specters of 'porn' won't cloud the more subtle (and real) issues. Plus I can do a search for vegetables without the distraction.
and that image... I've been recovering for years. [[shudder]]
Yeah, your right - you are one smart mother. That is a fundamental truth. Dismissing the entire argument (on /. no less) based on one obviously miss-calculated statement to emphasize a point is ludicrous. It's not even a good cop-out.
Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. um... I suppose if the entire field of Child Sexual Development is bullshit, your right.h tm
:D
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.
excerpt:
There are four stages of childhood and adolescence in which the focus of the body shifts between a primary and a secondary concern. The first stage is from birth to approximately 6 years of age. The physical body is primary; and sexual interests, curiosity, arousal and behavior are spontaneously expressed unless or until the child is taught to repress or inhibit her/his pleasure orientation.
The second stage is from approximately age 6 to pubescence (approximately age 12). The physical growth ratio slows, the basic gross and fine motor coordination is accomplished and reliable and the primary attention of the child shifts to the mental realm. The desire for sexual pleasure continues; however, most children are thoughtful and discriminating about their sexual
behavior and expressions. Their needs for privacy and autonomy characterize this stage.
The third stage is pubescence to early adolescence, and the age range is highly variable: approximately ages 13 to 15. As the hormones come into play, the body is once again primary, with rapid growth spurts, the development of secondary sex characteristics, sensations of increased intensity and a new awareness of the physical self and its impact on others in the social sense. Sexual behaviors respond to a stronger biological mandate, becoming a preoccupation which may be characterized by poor social judgment, high risk behavior and lack of discrimination.
The fourth stage is mid to late adolescence; and again, the age range is variable: approximately age 16+. The body growth rate slows,, the hormonal balance is achieved, the secondary sex changes are incorporated into the body image, the sexual response cycle is accommodated through masturbation or partner sex and sexual gratification is integrated into the context of a relationship.
** I never said porn was unnatural - I did say porn throws natural development off a cliff. Overstated for sure, but the point remains - Porn can be harmful to the sexual development of a child. Google 'child sexual development' for more, but some of the effects are well known and understood - desensitization, objectification, etc.
And in the past, royal families would 'keep it in the family' to protect the bloodline... that doesn't make it healthy.
It seems that a lot of people are just flat out unaware of the scientific reasons (well... as far as psychology is a science) behind the 'keep kids away from porn' argument.
Children do not have the cognitive maturity to understand what it is they're looking at. Exposing them to it when they are too young to understand it warps their perceptions and confuses their understanding of a relationship. This is a fundamental truth.
For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.
4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection.
Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14 (if I remember right), and it's a natural process that they go through with their peers all the way up through adulthood (19 to 22). They become progressively more curious as they get older, and willing to experiment. This provides normal healthy development, and they work it out by talking with thier peers (not you, as many parents would like to believe). Porn throws that development off a cliff - most will end up thinking that sex IS the relationship, and if they don't get it from their significant other, they get seriously confused. This confusion is manifested in everything from why doesn't he/she like me to violence (defense against rejection) and force. It also results in a fair amount of alienation from their peers (slut for girls / pervert for guys), which aggravates the confusion and reduces the pool of peers they can talk to about it (or are willing to talk to). It's also not something that works itself out when they get older, it's a belief system that's pretty hard to break.
So you see, it's not a morality thing, it's a social impact thing. Children should be protected from porn.
That doesn't mean censorship, it just means take reasonable steps to keep kids out - it's the beaded curtain at the video store or the entrance ID check at the local strip club. I'd say it's pretty simple - self regulation and common sense. If you try to pull the free speech defense when you're running a free porn site without a barrier to entry, your... screwed.
Wouldn't it be "copyleft", not 'open source'?
It was An asteroid about the size of a small house so sure. If it was low income housing.
Well... it could've been on FOX anyway.
Bush is the first person with the title President of the US to wear a military uniform while in office
That may be true but I think you're taking it out of context - A flight suit is designed in part to help the human body withstand g-forces and cold temperatures, fire retardant, etc. Would you have preferred that he have a flight suit designed custom or just use one the ship had? He wasn't wearing it to present himself as a member of the military, he was doing it because it's regulation, and for safety.
If your problem is with him taking a ride on a fighter at tax payers money, that's one thing. If your problem is that he's more of a draft dodger that got special privilege from the very same military he hid from, that's something too. But if your problem is his fashion sense or adherence to tradition (one he probably didn't know about)... well, that's just silly. You should be far more concerned with his actions than his social and political incompetence.
[I'm not a democrat either... ]
[speaks through bloody mouth] Just give me the money... and I'll go away...
[Door opens, security arrives]
ASH! Oh thank god... [sobbing]
Interesting, but wrong - Corporations still shouldn't have any 'rights'.
The New York Times doesn't actually have 'freedom of the press' because the New York Times doesn't have a mouth, or hand, or body. Corporations are just legal business structures groups of people work within. To give those people more rights because they've collected themselves into an organization just gives them 'special privilege'... something that undermines the concept that we are all equal.
Reporters, editors, etc. all have the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. The Corporation itself is just the structure they use for organization - it doesn't deserve any more privilege than a person with a website who chooses to call themselves a reporter. [Both are still responsible for any mis-information they may spread]
With that said, the New York Times (corporation) shouldn't be allowed to call you at your home to report the news. They can provide a convenient venue in which you choose to participate or not, but calling your home is an intrusion and something we can specifically outlaw without violating the reporters right to free speech, or the newspapers freedom of the press.
Simplistic, unfortunately more than a few grains of truth, but your confusing the 'morality' of working for the military because of how they're used, with the morality of the people you've elected who put them there.
The military is the sword arm of the leaders you elect. They are put in dangerous places to defend economic interests... on your behalf. When someone agrees to serve their country, they're doing so with the hope that the people they serve have had the wisdom to choose leaders who will do the bidding of the people. If that's not the case, it's not the military's fault. Most everyone in the military is keeping their word to you. They promised to serve you, defend the constitution and do the will of the people - and that will is directed by our elected leaders. They might be optimistic, or worst case gullible, but at least they've dedicated themselves to the idea that they can make a difference.
Now... when you consider that less than half of the population of the United States bothers to vote in a presidential election (much less for their state and local leaders), you can see that the problem is clearly the agnostic nature of the republic itself. To me, I think anyone who won't bother to vote (and vote with their conscience) doesn't deserve the dedication or protection of the police, much less the military... but I'm kind of a hard ass that way.
Oh yeah, one more thing - when the US was formed, the guys who did it mutually pledge[d] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. So I say, if you're in the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans, America should be operating on your dime. Not completely of course, but those people should honor the sacrifices of those who made their fortunes possible by protecting the system that gave them that opportunity.
oh for hell's sake, pull your head out of the dark stink.
If he's part of the problem so are you. He never said it was acceptable, he said it's going to happen. Burying your head in the sand and blaming politics or the world for it won't slow it down, but you're sure as hell willing to try. "Let's all get along!" you'll say... what a load. Millions die every year all over Africa alone from wars 'we' (you know, the country that everybody hates) have nothing to do with (and ain't it funny how they hate us for that too). Iran and Iraq made war for some 20 years with very little prodding from us [very little mind you, not 'no prodding']. The Balkans region has been warring for _centuries_... before we were even a country to hate.
War happens. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's social injustice, sometimes it's a big f'ing misunderstanding, but it happens. A lot. And if you've even seen pictures of it, you'll know that you can't ignore it, and you'd better damn well be prepared for it or you'll be on the side that gets buried, burned or blown to hell.
So let me wrap up in this little temper tantrum of mine by saying - you're a fool. While it would be nice if everyone would settle down and talk about it, not every does. More often than not they will, but sometimes they'd rather just kill you. And your family. and your neighbors, friends or just the folks standing next to you for being there. It's easier that way, and sometimes just more FUN. Just ask Milosevic... I'll bet that guy hates us too.
Welcome to an imperfect world.
Thank you for that return to "Bowling for Columbine" (I saw it last weekend too). :)
While your comments ring true, the argument about guns has been effectively hijacked by fear. We aren't talking about rights anymore, we're talking about consequences. We have over the course of the last 20 years become terrified of guns. But guns don't kill people, they are used to kill people. They're used for a lot of other things too, but the argument has been made, and by God we won't look beyond that fear - GUNS... kill people.
The real problem is that we fear our neighbors. We're afraid of the government, corporations, lawsuits, politicians, the media, Hollywood, and cholesterol. Fear. Fear is eating us inside out, and we are, little by little giving into that fear. Currently we're afraid of guns, or more accurately, who ELSE might have or get their hands on a gun. We have lost so much faith in our own countrymen that we've already resorted to spying on them. And now that we're there, the only steps left to ensure that our fears are put to rest is by disarming them. Which logically produces only one conclusion - someone will have the authority to tell others what's right and what's wrong. It might be the police, it might be the military, but it won't be you - a citizen of the country. I guess it really depends on whether or not you think that's a good thing. To the people who are about to lose their fire arms I'll bet they feel a lot like hardened democrats felt the day we landed in Iraq. Subverted, if not downright violated.
Fear is a far more powerful weapon than a fire arm, and anytime you let fear play a part in your decision about what's right and what's wrong, you've already made the wrong decision. I am not afraid of fire arms, and I am not willing to surrender everyone's right based on your fear. I am not afraid. I refuse to be afraid of my neighbors, corporations, politicians, terrorists or processed fat. I am willing to risk my life every day by walking out into a country filled with people who own fire arms. And I'm willing to do it to preserve the freedom my country promised. In fact, I think we should embrace this freedom with welcome arms and open hearts. Which is how we should be treating our neighbors. Both here and internationally.
And for the record... I own an antique shotgun that I can't buy shells for (only takes lead shot). Yes, that's right, I don't own a weapon that will fire a single bullet.
Sgt_Jake
PS - There was this little bald guy that kicked the entire British empire out of his poor country...and never lifted a gun or sword or any weapon to do it. Which means nothing when you think about it (I'm not being an ass here, don't react just yet) - Would having the right to have a weapon changed things for him at all? If you said yes, your presuming that Gandhi would have exercised that right. I don't think he would have. In fact, I think that if he'd wanted weapons he could have had them in a half a heart beat. What's important is that Gandhi wasn't afraid of the British, and they had guns. That's what changed their world. Why should we then, be afraid of our own neighbors because they have guns?
(I don't really know the name, I'm just making this up...)
it is?
Yeah... like that you can fly. That's turned out to be an insightful, and quite a novel point of view for many of the people it's killed. Case in point - "I'm not a cat, YOUR delusional!" - That's actual quote from a friend of mine as he lept from the 2nd story deck. Not killed, quite funny, but how appropriate for this discussion. Yes, on LSD.
LSD is dangerous because it's unpredictable, even in experienced users. While you've obviously done more than a passing review of the effects, your implication ignors the fact that you're poking your brain with a chemical stick to see what it'll do next... knowing full well that you don't, in fact, know what it'll do next. That's just stupid.
My personal favorite was the graphical boxed-helix as he compiled the worm/virus. 'cause, you know, as soon as you can make that last stick the right color, the whole thing'll flash a few times and do whatever you want it to. That's my favorite part of coding anyway...
Women who perpetuate the 'I like diamonds' myth are more likely found in liberal circles - models, fashion, entertainment and finance (yes, finance is a very liberal circle - your thinking of CEO's of major non-media corporations like oil and gas industries). If you're a woman, one would hope that you're at least as intelligent as you pretend to be.
While certainly one would find anti-materialists in the ACLU, Amnesty groups, and in local arts circles (and that's a f'ing cop out, any artist would sell their work for millions if they could - and then buy a diamond studded frame or stand for their personal favorite work), but you'll also find plenty of the same dedicated classes of 'money isn't everything' folks in religious, family oriented or athletic groups (thus, conservative and agnostic politicals).
In short Derch - quit suggesting that 'group A(women? liberals?)' is better than 'group B (men? conservatives?)'. My wife is smarter than you, and she'd kick _your_ ass for making women look stupid.
Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.