The Chinese government paid $5.85m to develop the software called Green Dam and claimed it was being installed to stop access to porn on computers and protect children
And here I thought that argument was limited to politicians in democracies who need to pander in order to win re-election. Good to know the Chinese are learning from our "example":)
What is the difference between Wikipedia editors deleting "useless" articles (that do in fact contain knowledge, albeit knowledge that they deem useless) and outright censorship?
Because "outright censorship" can only be imposed by the Government and Wikipedia is a private foundation that is free to set whatever rules they want? It's not "censorship" when you are free to go and start your own wiki if you disagree with the policies of Wikipedia.
I'm not sure if there's specifically a list of wikis anywhere, but there is a wiki for Conservatives [conservapedia.com]. Most articles seem to be mostly fixated on debunking Abortion, Evolution, and Homosexuality.
That's awesome! I didn't know Conservatives had their very own slanted wiki. Now all we need to do is start ones for the rest of the population:
American big-city Liberal wiki:
Firearms: Evil devices designed only for murder.
Rural America: The part of the country filled with inbred hicks who are too stupid to govern themselves.
Communist Chinese wiki:
Tiananmen Square: No such article found.
Revisionist Japanese wiki:
Rape of Nanjing: No such article found.
Bataan Death March: No such article found.
Burmese Death Railway: No such article found.
Revisionist American wiki:
Trail of tears: No such article found.
French wiki:
American revolution: The war waged by France against Great Britain with some minor assistance from 13 British colonies.
Fall of France: No such article found.
Dien Bien Phu: No such article found.
Southern wiki:
War of Northern Aggression (redirected from American Civil War)
Neo-con wiki:
Anti-Americanism: They hate us because we are free!
Hippie Liberal Douche wiki:
Anti-Americanism: They hate us because every single injustice in the world is caused by American aggression and imperialism.
Ahmadinejad wiki:
Homosexuality in Iran: No such article found.
Tin-foil hat wiki:
TWA Flight 800: A civilian airliner shot down by the US Navy.
9/11: The attacks carried out on the United States in 2001 by agents of the Mossad with the backing of the GWB administration.
Wi-Fi: A wireless communications system that is known to cause brain cancer and other neurological disorders.
Security theater wiki:
Bottled water: Portable containers of bottled water. When sold in containers greater than 3oz it becomes the single greatest threat to civilian aviation since the invention of the box cutter.
An example of this would be "BUFF" in the article about the B-52 Stratofortress, it means "Big Ugly Fat Fucker" but last time I checked someone had decided to make the article "child-friendly" by changing this to "Big Ugly Fat Fellow"
That's pretty ironic when I can go to this article and see a picture of the female sex organs. Won't someone please think of the children?
It is only relevant in rebuttal to the position you took. You're not failing to see that, you're refusing to acknowledge it.
The position that I've taken is that rape is a form of endangerment regardless of whether or not force is used in the commission thereof. Saying that "death is highly unlikely" does not rebut this point. The fact remains that the rape victim is forced into a situation against their will wherein they could lose their life. That's endangerment under any accepted definition of the word. Society recognizes this fact and allows the rape victim to use whatever amount of force is necessary to terminate the commission of this crime. Why you can't recognize it is beyond me.
As you have nothing more to offer this conversation, I'll leave you with the last word.
Ah yes, the good old fashioned "screw you guys, I'm going home" technique. Gotta admit, it's a classic:)
You are making it unnecessarily broad, to set up for an 'ah-ha' moment.
I'm not going for any ah-ha moment. I just want you to acknowledge the fact that rape places the rape victim in danger without qualifying it with completely unrelated statements like "regular sex is dangerous too" or "drunk college students put themselves at risk"
In fact, statistically speaking, it seems automobiles are far more deadly than rapists.
I can choose whether or not I want to get into an automobile. I can't choose whether or not I want to be raped.
However, statistically speaking, rape victims are seldom murdered.
How comforting.
However claiming there is MORTAL danger distorts the facts.
No, actually it doesn't. As I said, there is a reason why you are allowed to respond to rape or attempted rape with deadly force in most jurisdictions regardless of whether or not the would-be rapist is armed. The state gives you the right to take the life of someone who is raping you or attempting to do the same. Why do you suppose that is?
Your whole argument basically boils down to "it's unlikely that the rapist has HIV". I fail to see why that's relevant.
My "good cause" is the fact that having the multitool has bailed me out of situations where other people would be forced to call for help and stand there looking like an idiot until they get rescued by someone better prepared than they are.
I love the mother country for everything that you gave us but you guys really need to wake the hell up and take your country back. How did a country that formerly ruled a quarter of humanity grow to be so timid and afraid that your citizens aren't even allowed to carry a fucking multitool with them unless they can provide "good cause"?
But why should everybody be forced to pay for incoming calls?
Because you are the one who wants the convenience of mobility. Why should I have to pay extra to reach you just because you decided to have a cell phone?
And why should callers have to pay long-distance charges only because some people they want to reach chose to be available only at a distant place?
People still pay for long distance?
But it gets worse: how can companies only in this country get away by charging for incoming SMS messages, which receivers can not refuse nor filter by caller ID?
Would you really regard SMS as any less of a rip off if you were getting free incoming messages?
At least, one can refuse to pick up calls (and pay for incoming minutes) if they arrive from unwanted caller IDs...
Hey, I think there should be a way to block unwanted SMS as well. I just don't think that having that ability would make SMS any less of a rip off. I had them blocked on my phone for the longest time because I don't regard them as being useful enough to justify the cost. The only reason they are unblocked now is that it was cheaper to pay for unlimited SMS for all my lines than it was to pay for individual plans on my brother and sisters lines.
most people in this country will do anything to rationalize a 'greatest country' syndrome
Did I claim anything of the sort?
ranging from the abysmal health system, to the near-illiteracy provided by most of the primary school system, to double/triple pay TV reception, to outrageous internet fiber connection prices, to gun-accident-ridden society and overfilled jails, and finally to the lack of several basic freedoms enjoyed in many other more advanced democracies...
Now you are just ranting about topics that have absolutely nothing to do with TFA or wireless service in general. I do find your remark about "gun-accident-ridden society" to be amusing though. You do realize that you are more likely to drown than you are to be killed in a gun accident, right? And what countries have "several basic freedoms" that we don't? The United States has broader free speech protections than many other Western countries (many EU countries censor speech that they regard as hateful or racist), has more liberal gun laws and has broader protections against self-incrimination (you can't be compelled to turn over an encryption key here).
thus rendering them incapable of gaining 1st hand experience in other places... very sad.
I think it's very sad that you would regard the quality or lack thereof of a countries wireless service to be a major determining factor in how great that country is. Personally if I have to choose between my 2nd amendment rights and free incoming calls I'm going to choose the 2nd amendment. Let me know when the right to free incoming calls is added to the Bill of Rights though:)
Cell phone companies make it difficult and inconvient to check your useage because that makes it more likely you'll go over your minutes
Bullshit. I've personally used Verizon and T-Mobile and on both of them all you need to do is dial a special code or visit the webpage to check your minutes. It takes less than 15 seconds to dial the code and receive a response. My understanding is that AT&T has a similar system in place as well.
But the fact remains: why oh why do people defend a system where you're forced to pay to receive calls?
Because I tend to think it's better that I (the wireless customer) pay for the convenience of having a wireless phone than ask the people who call me to do it for me. Why should my mother with the landline phone pay an extra surcharge to call me just because I have a wireless phone? What value is she getting from my ownership of a wireless phone?
... and this is why I said that AT&T and VZW were the only real players in the market.
Correction: They are the only players in the market who meet your particular set of needs. Many people will spend the vast majority of their time within the area covered by T-Mobile and/or Sprint and are perfectly happy with the network that is available to them.
I asked a T-Mobile USA executive about this once at a trade show and his response was "We cover the area where 95% of the population spends 95% of it's time". I don't know whether or not those numbers are accurate but the underlying notion seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wouldn't shy away from them (in fact I wish I could switch back, but that's another story) because of coverage concerns.
You obviously would but it still isn't fair to say that VZW and AT&T are the only "real" players in the market. Not every wireless customer shares your priorities or needs. T-Mobile seems to have found a niche for itself and was growing at the same rate (percentage wise) as the big two the last time I checked. Sprint is dying a slow death but that has less to do with coverage and more to do with crappy customer service and the Nextel merger clusterfuck.
Understandable with a new wonderdrug that cost billions to develop, but it should absolutely not happen with general health care and phone network cartels of all things.
You do realize that it costs billions of dollars just to buy the spectrum licenses for a nationwide wireless network, right? That's before you deploy a single piece of equipment or lease a single tower.
To be fair, the shop I bought my last knives from had already had the "how do our customers avoid arrest?" conversation with the local police and advised me to keep it in its packaging and don't even take it out of the bag until getting home.
It's pretty sad that you can't even buy a kitchen knife without worrying about how you are going to transport it home. I walk around all the time with a leatherman that has a 4" blade. Tool of the trade. I've never even been questioned about it. About the only time it isn't with me is if I need to enter a governmental office or board an airplane.
Hell, people around here can purchase firearms without having to have a conversation about how to avoid being arrested.
unfortunately in the real world having everyone armed doesn't play out like that.
Perhaps not. But a firearm is the only way that your 4'11" geek is ever going to be able to defend himself against the 6'10" skinhead. What if said skinhead wants more than $5?
Here, in America, statutory rape has been abused to the point, that if a boy and girl have been dating for months, and he celebrates his 18th birthday before she does, he can be charged with rape, no matter that she consents, or maybe even initiates an evening of sex. THAT is a case of being raped by the system.
I don't disagree. Sane "age of consent" laws have provisions like my state -- the age of consent of 17 but there's also a four years age difference provision (i.e: a 19 year old can have sex with a 15 year old). I'm not so sure I think that a 19 year old needs to be having sex with a 15 year old but at least the law allows for the high school lovers scenario without sending someone to prison because he or she turned 18 a few weeks before their partner.
Real violent, brutal rape is simply not punished severely enough. The man who can use his fists to pummel a resistant woman into submission, should NEVER walk the streets again. In fact, I can justify the death penalty for many of them.
I would have no problem with the death penalty being applied for these scumbags. I would also have no problem if the woman had blown him away before he managed to get that far. Someone willing to do that deserves nothing more than a quick exit from this world and a face to face meeting with whichever god or gods he believes in.
As already stated, the worst offenders shouldn't even see sunlight, but there they are, walking the streets. Others, if they really DID do anything wrong, should serve a year of probation and be forgotten - they are no threat to anyone.
I completely agree. Someone who molests children or beats the shit out of women and rapes them should never see the light of day. Someone who wound up taking an underage chick home who got into the bar with a fake id and was downing shots of vodka should be charged with stupidity and given a slap on the wrist.
The sex offender registries bother me because they negate the concept of paying your debt to society. If someone is so dangerous that I need to know when he moves into my neighborhood why the hell is he getting out of prison in the first place? If he doesn't that dangerous then why do you need to tell me about him?
but if the people at the bottom don't see the people at the top as having earned their top position, if they see those at the top using power and coercion to take more than there fair share, we have a problem.
If you regard that as a problem then I hope you also regard it as a problem when the people at the top see themselves being treated as little more than ATM's for the people who outnumber them on election day and whom blame them for all of the ills of our society. I think there's something inherently wrong when 1% of the country pays a quarter (or more) of the expenses while 50% of the country pays none of them.
I helped a friend do her taxes last tax season and was disgusted to see that she got back almost twice what she paid in. Not only did she not pay a dime of Federal taxes but she actually got back money above and beyond what she paid in. I wasn't mad at her personally -- I wouldn't turn down free money either -- but I am mad at the system that allows it to happen that way.
You seem to think that we should all contribute to the broader community while defending a system that ensures that nearly half of the country isn't asked to contribute so much as a penny. Then you say that we have a problem if those half of the people see unfairness in the system while simultaneously ignoring the fact that people on the other side of the equation also regard the system as unfair.
If you think the cut throat can make more money, and you think it's fair for the ruthless and selfish to take advantage of the weak and selfless, then why the hell aren't you cut-throat?
Please stop putting words into my mouth. I did not say that I think it's fair for the ruthless and selfish to take advantage of the weak and selfless. All I said was that if I was so inclined as to cutthroat that I could likely make more money. And I already answered why I'm not cutthroat.
But there is a limit, and we have every right to say, "too much is too much, don't be greedy."
No, you really don't have that right. You have no right to tell someone that they are making too much money. Who are you to look at someone who built something with their own blood, sweat and tears and tell them that they are making "too much" money? What gives you the right to punish someone who has busted his or her ass and worked hard to get to where they are? Who the heck gets to decide how much money is "too much" anyway? Some jackass politician who is only interested in his own re-election and whom will pander to whatever special interest group that can deliver the most votes and campaign contributions?
You understand that it is your free choice to stay here, right?
It's also the free choice of those downtrodden masses that you worry about so much to leave and move somewhere that's more socialist. Funny how you don't see me resorting to that argument though.
The very fact that you are still here is proof that you think you are getting a good bargain.
No, I think I'm being ripped off by a system that started out with the best of intentions but which has grown to be so corrupt and bloated that it needs to gobble up half my salary in order to prop itself up.
I see a system that spends my money on bridges to nowhere, weapons systems that the military doesn't even want and social programs that are ripe with corruption and abuse.
I see people on the receiving end of public benefits at the grocery store, paying for their beer, junk food and tobacco with cash while using my money to buy the rest of their groceries.
I see people being punished for slavery and jim crow when their only connection to either is the fact that they share the skin color of the people who perpetrated those crimes many generations ago.
I see a Republic that was supposed to be a collection of sovereign states with a limited central government becoming increasingly
Some double standard notion of merely believing the "poor helpless female"
Where did I say anything about the "poor helpless female"? I did use the 100 pound woman as an example of a disparity of force situation, but I don't recall saying anything about females in my original post. All I said was that being penetrated against your will is in inherently violent act. This would seem to apply to male on male rape with the male organ, male on female rape with the male organ and [whoever] on [whoever] rape when foreign objects are involved.
There's forensic medicine that covers this sort of stuff. So if there aren't any signs of assault or battery then we really shouldn't assume that it has occured.
The absence of such evidence doesn't exactly prove the opposite either. Many rape victims get aroused and even have orgasms while being raped. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
Women as adults (legally and biologically) should be expected to act as such and be expected to look after their own interests.
Yes they should. Personally I think every woman should carry a.38 special. I'd imagine that if that happened that incidents of rape would decline dramatically. But that's really a separate discussion, isn't it?
I can't believe you are still arguing this point. I never said or implied that all rapists have HIV. All I said was that the act of rape removes the ability of the rape victim to make an informed decision about whether or not to engage in activity that is potentially dangerous.
Does everybody make an informed decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity? Obviously not. But why you insist on beating this point into the ground is beyond me. I was responding to the claim that rape is not a violent action unless the victim is endangered. The counter-argument to that is that rape is an inherently dangerous activity that endangers the victim by it's very nature. I fail to see the relevance of "drunken college students" to this point.
Does rape place the rape victim in danger, yes or no?
Rape is not more nor less bad due to the presence of STD's.
I didn't claim it was. I only responding to this individual who claimed that rape was only violent if the victim was endangered. The point was that rape by it's very nature is a form of endangerment, regardless of how much or how little force is used in the commission thereof.
Do you deny that rape places the victim at serious risk of bodily/mental injury with the added possibility of a potential death sentence?
The fact that you automatically associate "rape" with something that involves fear, trauma, or a lack of willingness only demonstrates that statutory rape is a misnomer and that we need to find a new name for the crime.
The fact that you couldn't be bothered to read the part of my original post wherein I said "Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above" only demonstrates that you aren't interested in listening to my point or acknowledging the fact that I'm not talking about statutory rape.
I hope for your sake that you are never unfortunate enough to be a victim of this crime yourself or know someone who is. It's a thoroughly vile, disgusting and violent act and other than murder I'm hard pressed to think of a worse crime that can be committed against the person.
The person outside of the rape agreed to the encounter. There was nothing stopping them from making an informed decision about the encounter and taking steps to protect themselves. Of course not everybody makes an informed decision but that's a separate discussion.
The rape victim has had this choice taken from them. That's why it's different. I should think this would be obvious to anyone who was interested in paying attention to my point and not nitpicking it to death with comparisons with consensual activity.
I can't believe that I'm receiving troll mods for arguing that rape is a violent action. WTF is wrong with you people?
Slashdot Mirror
The Chinese government paid $5.85m to develop the software called Green Dam and claimed it was being installed to stop access to porn on computers and protect children
And here I thought that argument was limited to politicians in democracies who need to pander in order to win re-election. Good to know the Chinese are learning from our "example" :)
What is the difference between Wikipedia editors deleting "useless" articles (that do in fact contain knowledge, albeit knowledge that they deem useless) and outright censorship?
Because "outright censorship" can only be imposed by the Government and Wikipedia is a private foundation that is free to set whatever rules they want? It's not "censorship" when you are free to go and start your own wiki if you disagree with the policies of Wikipedia.
I'm not sure if there's specifically a list of wikis anywhere, but there is a wiki for Conservatives [conservapedia.com]. Most articles seem to be mostly fixated on debunking Abortion, Evolution, and Homosexuality.
That's awesome! I didn't know Conservatives had their very own slanted wiki. Now all we need to do is start ones for the rest of the population:
American big-city Liberal wiki:
Firearms: Evil devices designed only for murder.
Rural America: The part of the country filled with inbred hicks who are too stupid to govern themselves.
Communist Chinese wiki:
Tiananmen Square: No such article found.
Revisionist Japanese wiki:
Rape of Nanjing: No such article found.
Bataan Death March: No such article found.
Burmese Death Railway: No such article found.
Revisionist American wiki:
Trail of tears: No such article found.
French wiki:
American revolution: The war waged by France against Great Britain with some minor assistance from 13 British colonies.
Fall of France: No such article found.
Dien Bien Phu: No such article found.
Southern wiki:
War of Northern Aggression (redirected from American Civil War)
Neo-con wiki:
Anti-Americanism: They hate us because we are free!
Hippie Liberal Douche wiki:
Anti-Americanism: They hate us because every single injustice in the world is caused by American aggression and imperialism.
Ahmadinejad wiki:
Homosexuality in Iran: No such article found.
Tin-foil hat wiki:
TWA Flight 800: A civilian airliner shot down by the US Navy.
9/11: The attacks carried out on the United States in 2001 by agents of the Mossad with the backing of the GWB administration.
Wi-Fi: A wireless communications system that is known to cause brain cancer and other neurological disorders.
Security theater wiki:
Bottled water: Portable containers of bottled water. When sold in containers greater than 3oz it becomes the single greatest threat to civilian aviation since the invention of the box cutter.
An example of this would be "BUFF" in the article about the B-52 Stratofortress, it means "Big Ugly Fat Fucker" but last time I checked someone had decided to make the article "child-friendly" by changing this to "Big Ugly Fat Fellow"
That's pretty ironic when I can go to this article and see a picture of the female sex organs. Won't someone please think of the children?
Steven Colbert stunts
You mean the population of the African elephant hasn't tripled in the last decade? Say it isn't so!
It is only relevant in rebuttal to the position you took. You're not failing to see that, you're refusing to acknowledge it.
The position that I've taken is that rape is a form of endangerment regardless of whether or not force is used in the commission thereof. Saying that "death is highly unlikely" does not rebut this point. The fact remains that the rape victim is forced into a situation against their will wherein they could lose their life. That's endangerment under any accepted definition of the word. Society recognizes this fact and allows the rape victim to use whatever amount of force is necessary to terminate the commission of this crime. Why you can't recognize it is beyond me.
As you have nothing more to offer this conversation, I'll leave you with the last word.
Ah yes, the good old fashioned "screw you guys, I'm going home" technique. Gotta admit, it's a classic :)
You are making it unnecessarily broad, to set up for an 'ah-ha' moment.
I'm not going for any ah-ha moment. I just want you to acknowledge the fact that rape places the rape victim in danger without qualifying it with completely unrelated statements like "regular sex is dangerous too" or "drunk college students put themselves at risk"
In fact, statistically speaking, it seems automobiles are far more deadly than rapists.
I can choose whether or not I want to get into an automobile. I can't choose whether or not I want to be raped.
However, statistically speaking, rape victims are seldom murdered.
How comforting.
However claiming there is MORTAL danger distorts the facts.
No, actually it doesn't. As I said, there is a reason why you are allowed to respond to rape or attempted rape with deadly force in most jurisdictions regardless of whether or not the would-be rapist is armed. The state gives you the right to take the life of someone who is raping you or attempting to do the same. Why do you suppose that is?
Your whole argument basically boils down to "it's unlikely that the rapist has HIV". I fail to see why that's relevant.
Yes or no, rape places the rape victim in danger?
My "good cause" is the fact that having the multitool has bailed me out of situations where other people would be forced to call for help and stand there looking like an idiot until they get rescued by someone better prepared than they are.
I love the mother country for everything that you gave us but you guys really need to wake the hell up and take your country back. How did a country that formerly ruled a quarter of humanity grow to be so timid and afraid that your citizens aren't even allowed to carry a fucking multitool with them unless they can provide "good cause"?
But why should everybody be forced to pay for incoming calls?
Because you are the one who wants the convenience of mobility. Why should I have to pay extra to reach you just because you decided to have a cell phone?
And why should callers have to pay long-distance charges only because some people they want to reach chose to be available only at a distant place?
People still pay for long distance?
But it gets worse: how can companies only in this country get away by charging for incoming SMS messages, which receivers can not refuse nor filter by caller ID?
Would you really regard SMS as any less of a rip off if you were getting free incoming messages?
At least, one can refuse to pick up calls (and pay for incoming minutes) if they arrive from unwanted caller IDs...
Hey, I think there should be a way to block unwanted SMS as well. I just don't think that having that ability would make SMS any less of a rip off. I had them blocked on my phone for the longest time because I don't regard them as being useful enough to justify the cost. The only reason they are unblocked now is that it was cheaper to pay for unlimited SMS for all my lines than it was to pay for individual plans on my brother and sisters lines.
most people in this country will do anything to rationalize a 'greatest country' syndrome
Did I claim anything of the sort?
ranging from the abysmal health system, to the near-illiteracy provided by most of the primary school system, to double/triple pay TV reception, to outrageous internet fiber connection prices, to gun-accident-ridden society and overfilled jails, and finally to the lack of several basic freedoms enjoyed in many other more advanced democracies...
Now you are just ranting about topics that have absolutely nothing to do with TFA or wireless service in general. I do find your remark about "gun-accident-ridden society" to be amusing though. You do realize that you are more likely to drown than you are to be killed in a gun accident, right? And what countries have "several basic freedoms" that we don't? The United States has broader free speech protections than many other Western countries (many EU countries censor speech that they regard as hateful or racist), has more liberal gun laws and has broader protections against self-incrimination (you can't be compelled to turn over an encryption key here).
thus rendering them incapable of gaining 1st hand experience in other places... very sad.
I think it's very sad that you would regard the quality or lack thereof of a countries wireless service to be a major determining factor in how great that country is. Personally if I have to choose between my 2nd amendment rights and free incoming calls I'm going to choose the 2nd amendment. Let me know when the right to free incoming calls is added to the Bill of Rights though :)
Cell phone companies make it difficult and inconvient to check your useage because that makes it more likely you'll go over your minutes
Bullshit. I've personally used Verizon and T-Mobile and on both of them all you need to do is dial a special code or visit the webpage to check your minutes. It takes less than 15 seconds to dial the code and receive a response. My understanding is that AT&T has a similar system in place as well.
But the fact remains: why oh why do people defend a system where you're forced to pay to receive calls?
Because I tend to think it's better that I (the wireless customer) pay for the convenience of having a wireless phone than ask the people who call me to do it for me. Why should my mother with the landline phone pay an extra surcharge to call me just because I have a wireless phone? What value is she getting from my ownership of a wireless phone?
... and this is why I said that AT&T and VZW were the only real players in the market.
Correction: They are the only players in the market who meet your particular set of needs. Many people will spend the vast majority of their time within the area covered by T-Mobile and/or Sprint and are perfectly happy with the network that is available to them.
I asked a T-Mobile USA executive about this once at a trade show and his response was "We cover the area where 95% of the population spends 95% of it's time". I don't know whether or not those numbers are accurate but the underlying notion seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wouldn't shy away from them (in fact I wish I could switch back, but that's another story) because of coverage concerns.
You obviously would but it still isn't fair to say that VZW and AT&T are the only "real" players in the market. Not every wireless customer shares your priorities or needs. T-Mobile seems to have found a niche for itself and was growing at the same rate (percentage wise) as the big two the last time I checked. Sprint is dying a slow death but that has less to do with coverage and more to do with crappy customer service and the Nextel merger clusterfuck.
Understandable with a new wonderdrug that cost billions to develop, but it should absolutely not happen with general health care and phone network cartels of all things.
You do realize that it costs billions of dollars just to buy the spectrum licenses for a nationwide wireless network, right? That's before you deploy a single piece of equipment or lease a single tower.
To be fair, the shop I bought my last knives from had already had the "how do our customers avoid arrest?" conversation with the local police and advised me to keep it in its packaging and don't even take it out of the bag until getting home.
It's pretty sad that you can't even buy a kitchen knife without worrying about how you are going to transport it home. I walk around all the time with a leatherman that has a 4" blade. Tool of the trade. I've never even been questioned about it. About the only time it isn't with me is if I need to enter a governmental office or board an airplane.
Hell, people around here can purchase firearms without having to have a conversation about how to avoid being arrested.
unfortunately in the real world having everyone armed doesn't play out like that.
Perhaps not. But a firearm is the only way that your 4'11" geek is ever going to be able to defend himself against the 6'10" skinhead. What if said skinhead wants more than $5?
BTW, kudos for digging up those pictures ;)
Likewise, if I knew I would be in for surgery and I told you to hump me while I'm under and tell me all about it when I wake up, that's okay too.
I think your surgeon would see things differently ;)
Here, in America, statutory rape has been abused to the point, that if a boy and girl have been dating for months, and he celebrates his 18th birthday before she does, he can be charged with rape, no matter that she consents, or maybe even initiates an evening of sex. THAT is a case of being raped by the system.
I don't disagree. Sane "age of consent" laws have provisions like my state -- the age of consent of 17 but there's also a four years age difference provision (i.e: a 19 year old can have sex with a 15 year old). I'm not so sure I think that a 19 year old needs to be having sex with a 15 year old but at least the law allows for the high school lovers scenario without sending someone to prison because he or she turned 18 a few weeks before their partner.
Real violent, brutal rape is simply not punished severely enough. The man who can use his fists to pummel a resistant woman into submission, should NEVER walk the streets again. In fact, I can justify the death penalty for many of them.
I would have no problem with the death penalty being applied for these scumbags. I would also have no problem if the woman had blown him away before he managed to get that far. Someone willing to do that deserves nothing more than a quick exit from this world and a face to face meeting with whichever god or gods he believes in.
As already stated, the worst offenders shouldn't even see sunlight, but there they are, walking the streets. Others, if they really DID do anything wrong, should serve a year of probation and be forgotten - they are no threat to anyone.
I completely agree. Someone who molests children or beats the shit out of women and rapes them should never see the light of day. Someone who wound up taking an underage chick home who got into the bar with a fake id and was downing shots of vodka should be charged with stupidity and given a slap on the wrist.
The sex offender registries bother me because they negate the concept of paying your debt to society. If someone is so dangerous that I need to know when he moves into my neighborhood why the hell is he getting out of prison in the first place? If he doesn't that dangerous then why do you need to tell me about him?
but if the people at the bottom don't see the people at the top as having earned their top position, if they see those at the top using power and coercion to take more than there fair share, we have a problem.
If you regard that as a problem then I hope you also regard it as a problem when the people at the top see themselves being treated as little more than ATM's for the people who outnumber them on election day and whom blame them for all of the ills of our society. I think there's something inherently wrong when 1% of the country pays a quarter (or more) of the expenses while 50% of the country pays none of them.
I helped a friend do her taxes last tax season and was disgusted to see that she got back almost twice what she paid in. Not only did she not pay a dime of Federal taxes but she actually got back money above and beyond what she paid in. I wasn't mad at her personally -- I wouldn't turn down free money either -- but I am mad at the system that allows it to happen that way.
You seem to think that we should all contribute to the broader community while defending a system that ensures that nearly half of the country isn't asked to contribute so much as a penny. Then you say that we have a problem if those half of the people see unfairness in the system while simultaneously ignoring the fact that people on the other side of the equation also regard the system as unfair.
If you think the cut throat can make more money, and you think it's fair for the ruthless and selfish to take advantage of the weak and selfless, then why the hell aren't you cut-throat?
Please stop putting words into my mouth. I did not say that I think it's fair for the ruthless and selfish to take advantage of the weak and selfless. All I said was that if I was so inclined as to cutthroat that I could likely make more money. And I already answered why I'm not cutthroat.
But there is a limit, and we have every right to say, "too much is too much, don't be greedy."
No, you really don't have that right. You have no right to tell someone that they are making too much money. Who are you to look at someone who built something with their own blood, sweat and tears and tell them that they are making "too much" money? What gives you the right to punish someone who has busted his or her ass and worked hard to get to where they are? Who the heck gets to decide how much money is "too much" anyway? Some jackass politician who is only interested in his own re-election and whom will pander to whatever special interest group that can deliver the most votes and campaign contributions?
You understand that it is your free choice to stay here, right?
It's also the free choice of those downtrodden masses that you worry about so much to leave and move somewhere that's more socialist. Funny how you don't see me resorting to that argument though.
The very fact that you are still here is proof that you think you are getting a good bargain.
No, I think I'm being ripped off by a system that started out with the best of intentions but which has grown to be so corrupt and bloated that it needs to gobble up half my salary in order to prop itself up.
I see a system that spends my money on bridges to nowhere, weapons systems that the military doesn't even want and social programs that are ripe with corruption and abuse.
I see people on the receiving end of public benefits at the grocery store, paying for their beer, junk food and tobacco with cash while using my money to buy the rest of their groceries.
I see people being punished for slavery and jim crow when their only connection to either is the fact that they share the skin color of the people who perpetrated those crimes many generations ago.
I see a Republic that was supposed to be a collection of sovereign states with a limited central government becoming increasingly
Here's the way it should work:
Guy 1: GIMME 5 FUCKING BUCKS! .45 caliber government model* "NO!"
Guy 2: *pulls out
Guy 1: *shits his pants and runs away*
God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Some double standard notion of merely believing the "poor helpless female"
Where did I say anything about the "poor helpless female"? I did use the 100 pound woman as an example of a disparity of force situation, but I don't recall saying anything about females in my original post. All I said was that being penetrated against your will is in inherently violent act. This would seem to apply to male on male rape with the male organ, male on female rape with the male organ and [whoever] on [whoever] rape when foreign objects are involved.
There's forensic medicine that covers this sort of stuff. So if there aren't any signs of assault or battery then we really shouldn't assume that it has occured.
The absence of such evidence doesn't exactly prove the opposite either. Many rape victims get aroused and even have orgasms while being raped. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
Women as adults (legally and biologically) should be expected to act as such and be expected to look after their own interests.
Yes they should. Personally I think every woman should carry a .38 special. I'd imagine that if that happened that incidents of rape would decline dramatically. But that's really a separate discussion, isn't it?
I can't believe you are still arguing this point. I never said or implied that all rapists have HIV. All I said was that the act of rape removes the ability of the rape victim to make an informed decision about whether or not to engage in activity that is potentially dangerous.
Does everybody make an informed decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity? Obviously not. But why you insist on beating this point into the ground is beyond me. I was responding to the claim that rape is not a violent action unless the victim is endangered. The counter-argument to that is that rape is an inherently dangerous activity that endangers the victim by it's very nature. I fail to see the relevance of "drunken college students" to this point.
Does rape place the rape victim in danger, yes or no?
Rape is not more nor less bad due to the presence of STD's.
I didn't claim it was. I only responding to this individual who claimed that rape was only violent if the victim was endangered. The point was that rape by it's very nature is a form of endangerment, regardless of how much or how little force is used in the commission thereof.
Do you deny that rape places the victim at serious risk of bodily/mental injury with the added possibility of a potential death sentence?
The fact that you automatically associate "rape" with something that involves fear, trauma, or a lack of willingness only demonstrates that statutory rape is a misnomer and that we need to find a new name for the crime.
The fact that you couldn't be bothered to read the part of my original post wherein I said "Mind you, I don't think statutory rape should be regarded in the same manner as what I described above" only demonstrates that you aren't interested in listening to my point or acknowledging the fact that I'm not talking about statutory rape.
I hope for your sake that you are never unfortunate enough to be a victim of this crime yourself or know someone who is. It's a thoroughly vile, disgusting and violent act and other than murder I'm hard pressed to think of a worse crime that can be committed against the person.
This is also true outside of rape.
The person outside of the rape agreed to the encounter. There was nothing stopping them from making an informed decision about the encounter and taking steps to protect themselves. Of course not everybody makes an informed decision but that's a separate discussion.
The rape victim has had this choice taken from them. That's why it's different. I should think this would be obvious to anyone who was interested in paying attention to my point and not nitpicking it to death with comparisons with consensual activity.
I can't believe that I'm receiving troll mods for arguing that rape is a violent action. WTF is wrong with you people?