No, seriously, charity is literally the definitional opposite of self-serving behavior. I understand that Gates was not the nicest man when it came to running a business, but he's said, and is on course to, divest his entire wealth into a charity with the intent of intelligently benefiting all mankind by the time he dies. I would love to hear a definition of "self-serving" that seriously allows for that.
Drugs can't adequately explain the bizarre paranoid delusions inforwars garners. Drugs can induce delusions, but they're usually not of the paranoid kind. I have every reason to believe that there's a relatively(10-25%) common mental issue that the Internet has allowed to surface and self-reinforce. Things common to all of us, like confirmation bias makes a few paranoid delusions start to seem rational to particular subcultures, and they all assure each-other of how right they are.
I'm sure there must be some academic research beginning to approach this concept in some depth, but my sociology background is weak enough that I wouldn't even know what to look for.
That's far better than oblivion, where they hired 3 actors for the entire world. You're gonna have immersion problems when you have a generic replaceable character like "Guard" anyways. The peak of the elder scrolls series was still Morrowind, though. Text allows so much depth and breadth to discussions, whereas voice-acting creates an inherent budget limitation that's hard to overcome.
Now, look, I went after someone in a recent thread for attacking others' beliefs without a hint of self-awareness regarding their own, but quoting someone verbatim isn't mocking their beliefs. Their beliefs would have to be a mockery to begin with for that to work.
You are obligated to only fulfill the terms of your contract. Part of being a contractor is doing things however you want as long as you are not in violation of your terms.
Ok, so you now feel it is necessary to blindly attack my character, without, notably providing a single source for your claims. You seriously need to grow up. I would have been willing to accept your barely on-topic technical correct, if there was the slightest hint of reason to believe it.
You then pretend like you have a in-depth knowledge of American History because you know what a regular army is(what is this, high school?) I don't know why you assume me to be ignorant, but seriously, this is stupid.
Look, read the wikipedia article on lexington and concord. The purpose there was to seize the weapons. I'm aware that it's synthesis to state that that's why the right to firearms is enshrined in the constitution, but that position came from a historians who wrote the revolutionary era histories I studied. I believe there were letters cited in those books too, but I don't have them on hand to look up the names.
Yes, but they also want to make sure you can't sell it later, and keep you from getting refunded by retaining the power to remove your license at any time.
EA wasn't out to stop pirates, they were out to manipulate and screw over the customers.
One more fun thing. I searched on my favorite search engine for "arms versus ordnance", and the first result was this, which includes the choice quote: "Ordnance = arms and ammunition". Literally the opposite of what you said.
Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.
Cite your goddamn lies. Oddly enough, if I search for historical books referencing both canon and arms, I can find several situations, such as this one or that, where cannon are referred to as firearms, and NONE supporting your goddamn position.
I wasted 20 minutes, trying vainly to find something, anything, having any support for what you're saying, and all I find is contrary evidence.
I tried. I tried to pretend you weren't a liar. Why don't you provide me with the evidence that it's true. Moreover, you certainly haven't defended your obsessive almost moronic point I addressed with #3.
You seem to equate misinformative propaganda with education. There's not actually historical precedent to that.
Points of fact: 1. The weapons the British attempted to seize from colonial militias in the early stages of the war were, in fact, canon, not muskets. That's what the British had actually set out to do before the battles Lexington and Concord. Even if this isn't explicitly spelled out in the federalist/antifederalist papers, the histories I've read implies that that action was what provoked the 2nd amendment. 2. No dictionary I checked( I just checked 3) refers to arms that way. I know that dictionaries become a common tool after the revolution, but it certainly doesn't lend credence to your bare assertion. In fact, several of them refer specifically to weapons of war, rather than hand-held weapons. 3. I will personally give you $20, if you can find any sort of historical(i.e. period) document that supports your obsessively, almost autistic, idea of what well regulated means. For the obvious thing that even you should be able to identify, the "well regulated" adjective applies to the word "militia", not "arms" for any semantically viable parsing of the English there.
The main reason why I'm against it is that the people who COULD do it are also the ones I would trust the least to do it right.
Yep. I envy other countries that had a chance to look at the mistakes and successes made in the US constitution before moving to a constitutional democracy.
A. Limit is not the same as prevent. B. Two militias fighting a war do cause quite serious systemic problems where it happens, e.g. gang wars. Just because they aren't called militias doesn't mean they aren't.
The why is easy. All it takes is one militia that goes to far to have untold death and destruction. Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse(not even counting the whole voting thing). There's no reason to assume the same about a militia.
Um, yes, that's the parallel I was drawing. A poorly considered amendment too focused on the issues of the time without the broader sense of fundamental, enduring good attached.
Slashdot Mirror
No, seriously, charity is literally the definitional opposite of self-serving behavior. I understand that Gates was not the nicest man when it came to running a business, but he's said, and is on course to, divest his entire wealth into a charity with the intent of intelligently benefiting all mankind by the time he dies. I would love to hear a definition of "self-serving" that seriously allows for that.
It seems inappropriate to call the person who gave the most money to charity in the history of the world self-serving.
Did you know Texas Real Estate Agents are involved in a scam to create a new housing bubble to exploit?
Hold on, I don't think that's fair.
Drugs can't adequately explain the bizarre paranoid delusions inforwars garners. Drugs can induce delusions, but they're usually not of the paranoid kind. I have every reason to believe that there's a relatively(10-25%) common mental issue that the Internet has allowed to surface and self-reinforce. Things common to all of us, like confirmation bias makes a few paranoid delusions start to seem rational to particular subcultures, and they all assure each-other of how right they are.
I'm sure there must be some academic research beginning to approach this concept in some depth, but my sociology background is weak enough that I wouldn't even know what to look for.
That's far better than oblivion, where they hired 3 actors for the entire world. You're gonna have immersion problems when you have a generic replaceable character like "Guard" anyways. The peak of the elder scrolls series was still Morrowind, though. Text allows so much depth and breadth to discussions, whereas voice-acting creates an inherent budget limitation that's hard to overcome.
Now, look, I went after someone in a recent thread for attacking others' beliefs without a hint of self-awareness regarding their own, but quoting someone verbatim isn't mocking their beliefs. Their beliefs would have to be a mockery to begin with for that to work.
Hebrew wasn't the common language in Jesus' time. It was essentially only involved in religious ceremony. Aramaic was the local dialect.
Meh. Stopped caring, you don't cite anything still. I can just assume you don't know anything.
That's what I meant. In retrospect, it was poorly communicated.
You are obligated to only fulfill the terms of your contract. Part of being a contractor is doing things however you want as long as you are not in violation of your terms.
Ah, we'd finally have the much desired -1 I disagree option.
Ok, so you now feel it is necessary to blindly attack my character, without, notably providing a single source for your claims. You seriously need to grow up. I would have been willing to accept your barely on-topic technical correct, if there was the slightest hint of reason to believe it.
You then pretend like you have a in-depth knowledge of American History because you know what a regular army is(what is this, high school?) I don't know why you assume me to be ignorant, but seriously, this is stupid.
Look, read the wikipedia article on lexington and concord. The purpose there was to seize the weapons. I'm aware that it's synthesis to state that that's why the right to firearms is enshrined in the constitution, but that position came from a historians who wrote the revolutionary era histories I studied. I believe there were letters cited in those books too, but I don't have them on hand to look up the names.
Suffice it to say, CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Yes, but they also want to make sure you can't sell it later, and keep you from getting refunded by retaining the power to remove your license at any time.
EA wasn't out to stop pirates, they were out to manipulate and screw over the customers.
One more fun thing. I searched on my favorite search engine for "arms versus ordnance", and the first result was this, which includes the choice quote: "Ordnance = arms and ammunition". Literally the opposite of what you said.
Uh, no, that's not the same at all. Violence is specifically a means to deny someone else their right to life. Inherently violent resolution cannot co-exist with the belief in natural rights. That's an absurdity.
Cite your goddamn lies. Oddly enough, if I search for historical books referencing both canon and arms, I can find several situations, such as this one or that, where cannon are referred to as firearms, and NONE supporting your goddamn position.
I wasted 20 minutes, trying vainly to find something, anything, having any support for what you're saying, and all I find is contrary evidence.
I tried. I tried to pretend you weren't a liar. Why don't you provide me with the evidence that it's true. Moreover, you certainly haven't defended your obsessive almost moronic point I addressed with #3.
The People.
By means of democracy. WHOOOA WAIT A MINUTE. That's the government(s) again!
You seem to equate misinformative propaganda with education. There's not actually historical precedent to that.
Points of fact:
1. The weapons the British attempted to seize from colonial militias in the early stages of the war were, in fact, canon, not muskets. That's what the British had actually set out to do before the battles Lexington and Concord. Even if this isn't explicitly spelled out in the federalist/antifederalist papers, the histories I've read implies that that action was what provoked the 2nd amendment.
2. No dictionary I checked( I just checked 3) refers to arms that way. I know that dictionaries become a common tool after the revolution, but it certainly doesn't lend credence to your bare assertion. In fact, several of them refer specifically to weapons of war, rather than hand-held weapons.
3. I will personally give you $20, if you can find any sort of historical(i.e. period) document that supports your obsessively, almost autistic, idea of what well regulated means. For the obvious thing that even you should be able to identify, the "well regulated" adjective applies to the word "militia", not "arms" for any semantically viable parsing of the English there.
You'll find the actual de-facto jurisprudence is that many hand-held things, such as RPGs are not covered by the 2nd amendment.
The main reason why I'm against it is that the people who COULD do it are also the ones I would trust the least to do it right.
Yep. I envy other countries that had a chance to look at the mistakes and successes made in the US constitution before moving to a constitutional democracy.
A. Limit is not the same as prevent.
B. Two militias fighting a war do cause quite serious systemic problems where it happens, e.g. gang wars. Just because they aren't called militias doesn't mean they aren't.
I indeed do not consider violence an innate right. It is a sometimes necessary tool that should be reserved for cases of need.
I guess there are always miscarriages of justice that define precedent in this country. sigh
The why is easy. All it takes is one militia that goes to far to have untold death and destruction. Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse(not even counting the whole voting thing). There's no reason to assume the same about a militia.
Um, yes, that's the parallel I was drawing. A poorly considered amendment too focused on the issues of the time without the broader sense of fundamental, enduring good attached.