Are you seriously trying prove your point with a false dichotomy and then calling me stupid? Really?
How about her call to Lego to remove any facial hair from their characters because showing men with facial hair is bad.
How about her call for companies not to show men playing with their sons because that is bad.
How about her claim that testosterone is bad.
You haven't watched her videos then. She is very clear that men are bad. Even going so far as to say that men playing with blocks with their son is proof of men being bad. She also decries the evils of razor stubble and testosterone as more evidence of the evil that is man.
By letting police and prosecutors decide when to enforce the law and when not to, you make them defacto judges. When their decisions carry penalties, they become defacto "executioners" (Yes, I put the word executioners in quotes because they do not actually kill you, but they do enact punishments including jail time and financial costs).
When you have laws the get selectively enforced, innocent people are already getting punished. Worse yet, you are giving a criminal the tool to use that punishment for his own agenda. Selective enforcement means that the law isn't really a law, it is just an excuse to use the color of law to abuse citizens, and lives are already being ruined by stupid laws combined with selective enforcement.
A big reason that we have so many stupid laws is due to selective enforcement.
I watched one of her videos. It was 13 minutes of man hate. Things like calling out father-son road trips as being bad. Or fathers playing with their sons at all as being bad. Claiming that testosterone is an inherently a negative trait is understandably sexist. She is simply a hate-monger. Dismissing her sexist hate-mongering does not make the parent poster a bigot.
You are right, there is no excuse for threats of violence. That being said, she is is absolutely trying to insult men. The video I watched had her saying that commercials that show fathers playing with their sons, and father son road trips are wrong. She also says that testosterone and facial hair are negative traits. Basically the video I watched was 13 minutes of man hate.
When you make a high profile career out of hate-mongering, it should not surprise you that someone is going to behave badly towards you.
I watched one video, and it was 13 minutes of man hate. I'm pretty sure that saying testosterone is a negative trait is in fact insulting an entire gender.
Given that she has said that commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons are bad, and that products should not depict testosterone inspired activity, you would be wrong that she is not at war with men. I just pulled up her site and randomly picked one of her videos. It happened to be a bit about Lego. It was 13 minutes of man hate.
I'm not excusing people who make threats, but much like Jerry Springer, if you are a hate-monger, it shouldn't be a surprise when the mentally unstable make them at you.
If you didn't feel insulted, you missed her point. Her job is to insult men. No, the game producers are not saying "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." They are saying "This is pretend. Lots of people like horror fiction. Lets pander to that." In fact, horror fiction is popular among women as well as men, and yes, frequently it involves sexual mutilation of men as well.
The fact that you think this is a "male" problem does not make you "one of the good ones". It just means that you have been convinced half the population was born wrong.
I agree, but it isn't surprising. When you make a career out of hate-mongering, you will eventually hit on targets that will make threats. Jerry Springer receives death threats too.
No, his solution is to jail the first people who film rabbits and then have the law repealed due to it hitting someone who has the resources to call out the stupidity of the law, INSTEAD of having even more people jailed for filming rabbits because anyone with resources to fight the law getting a free pass from the cops.
The question is whether someone will get jailed for photographing rabbits or not. It is a question of whether the police can use that law as a means of harrasing and abusing people for their own benefit.
So, cops won't get to let the chick with big tits off on her speeding ticket because she showed him some nip? Good. The whole "police discretion" line is just the first step down the slippery slope of police corruption.
That is exactly the opposite of what we want. You are suggesting that if a cop wants to severely beat you, all he has to do is disable his camera, and any charges against him will be dismissed.
True. What would be even better is if we could get criminal cops' accomplices prosecuted due to these cameras. Currently, we have a system where the cost of enforcing the law on police carries a higher price for other police than abetting the criminal activities of their fellow officers. We need to turn that around and make the cost of abetting criminal activity to have a higher price than arresting a cop.
The current situation is why I don't believe there are 'good' cops. Any cop that witnesses another cop breaking the law and does not enforce the law against him is an accomplice. Corruption is to wide spread for good cops to exist in our current environment.
In fact, if you know any cops, and chat with them about it while off duty, they are pretty open about the fact that they don't arrest other cops. The ones I have known think that using the words "professional courtesy" means that they are not accessories to the crime.
Given that every street light in my county already has cameras attached, it seems we are already committed. I am still amazed at how easily the population accepted thousands of cameras to be installed around the county.
As far as I am aware, this is the norm throughout Northern California. Is this not common in other parts of the country?
We all know that purchase price is only a small fraction of TCO. Even if they get the military equipment for free, it isn't free to maintain it. Claims that there is little to no cost involved in purchasing military equipment isn't even a good lie.
No, a plea bargain is a forced confession under the duress of being threatened with being tried for extra charges that the prosecutor does not believe you can legitimately be convicted of.
You should re-read what you wrote. You are suggesting that Apple products are better because the scammers would need to get their victim to click on dangerous stuff instead of clicking on dangerous stuff like they would on a Windows machine.
Of course it does. In fact, your entire argument is complaining about property ownership at a national scale. You just can't see it because you think your shade of gray is better than other people's shade of gray.
Everybody does not know that. I have no experience with GHB, and don't know anyone first hand that does. A search didn't find anything that said that. Do you have a link? I don't ask that to be snarky. I knew that it was usually put into alcohol, but had never heard anything about it requiring large quantities to function.
Given the simplicity of putting on nail polish, the drawback of wearing it would be pretty small. Remember, while the rate of drugging rapes is small across the whole population, there are a lot of women going to situations that they know have an inordinately high likelihood of someone raping them, and Not to mention, they are going already going into it with the intent of drugging themselves with a drug that induces poor judgement.
As with any security measure, it is a question of balancing convenience, cost, and risk. Going to a 3 year old's birthday party? Don't need it. Going to a frat party where you already know a couple of the guys are rapists? Yeah, the nail polish is probably a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriously trying prove your point with a false dichotomy and then calling me stupid? Really?
How about her call to Lego to remove any facial hair from their characters because showing men with facial hair is bad.
How about her call for companies not to show men playing with their sons because that is bad.
How about her claim that testosterone is bad.
You haven't watched her videos then. She is very clear that men are bad. Even going so far as to say that men playing with blocks with their son is proof of men being bad. She also decries the evils of razor stubble and testosterone as more evidence of the evil that is man.
By letting police and prosecutors decide when to enforce the law and when not to, you make them defacto judges. When their decisions carry penalties, they become defacto "executioners" (Yes, I put the word executioners in quotes because they do not actually kill you, but they do enact punishments including jail time and financial costs).
When you have laws the get selectively enforced, innocent people are already getting punished. Worse yet, you are giving a criminal the tool to use that punishment for his own agenda. Selective enforcement means that the law isn't really a law, it is just an excuse to use the color of law to abuse citizens, and lives are already being ruined by stupid laws combined with selective enforcement.
A big reason that we have so many stupid laws is due to selective enforcement.
Saying that testosterone is a negative trait IS insulting an entire gender.
I watched one of her videos. It was 13 minutes of man hate. Things like calling out father-son road trips as being bad. Or fathers playing with their sons at all as being bad. Claiming that testosterone is an inherently a negative trait is understandably sexist. She is simply a hate-monger. Dismissing her sexist hate-mongering does not make the parent poster a bigot.
You are right, there is no excuse for threats of violence. That being said, she is is absolutely trying to insult men. The video I watched had her saying that commercials that show fathers playing with their sons, and father son road trips are wrong. She also says that testosterone and facial hair are negative traits. Basically the video I watched was 13 minutes of man hate.
When you make a high profile career out of hate-mongering, it should not surprise you that someone is going to behave badly towards you.
I watched one video, and it was 13 minutes of man hate. I'm pretty sure that saying testosterone is a negative trait is in fact insulting an entire gender.
Saying that testosterone is bad most certainly is insulting the whole gender.
How about like, having testosterone, or taking a road trip with your dad. These are things that she characterizes as evil.
Given that she has said that commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons are bad, and that products should not depict testosterone inspired activity, you would be wrong that she is not at war with men. I just pulled up her site and randomly picked one of her videos. It happened to be a bit about Lego. It was 13 minutes of man hate.
I'm not excusing people who make threats, but much like Jerry Springer, if you are a hate-monger, it shouldn't be a surprise when the mentally unstable make them at you.
If you didn't feel insulted, you missed her point. Her job is to insult men. No, the game producers are not saying "men are brutes with no compassion, let's pander to that." They are saying "This is pretend. Lots of people like horror fiction. Lets pander to that." In fact, horror fiction is popular among women as well as men, and yes, frequently it involves sexual mutilation of men as well.
The fact that you think this is a "male" problem does not make you "one of the good ones". It just means that you have been convinced half the population was born wrong.
I agree, but it isn't surprising. When you make a career out of hate-mongering, you will eventually hit on targets that will make threats. Jerry Springer receives death threats too.
No, his solution is to jail the first people who film rabbits and then have the law repealed due to it hitting someone who has the resources to call out the stupidity of the law, INSTEAD of having even more people jailed for filming rabbits because anyone with resources to fight the law getting a free pass from the cops.
The question is whether someone will get jailed for photographing rabbits or not. It is a question of whether the police can use that law as a means of harrasing and abusing people for their own benefit.
So, cops won't get to let the chick with big tits off on her speeding ticket because she showed him some nip? Good. The whole "police discretion" line is just the first step down the slippery slope of police corruption.
That is exactly the opposite of what we want. You are suggesting that if a cop wants to severely beat you, all he has to do is disable his camera, and any charges against him will be dismissed.
True. What would be even better is if we could get criminal cops' accomplices prosecuted due to these cameras. Currently, we have a system where the cost of enforcing the law on police carries a higher price for other police than abetting the criminal activities of their fellow officers. We need to turn that around and make the cost of abetting criminal activity to have a higher price than arresting a cop.
The current situation is why I don't believe there are 'good' cops. Any cop that witnesses another cop breaking the law and does not enforce the law against him is an accomplice. Corruption is to wide spread for good cops to exist in our current environment.
In fact, if you know any cops, and chat with them about it while off duty, they are pretty open about the fact that they don't arrest other cops. The ones I have known think that using the words "professional courtesy" means that they are not accessories to the crime.
Given that every street light in my county already has cameras attached, it seems we are already committed. I am still amazed at how easily the population accepted thousands of cameras to be installed around the county.
As far as I am aware, this is the norm throughout Northern California. Is this not common in other parts of the country?
We all know that purchase price is only a small fraction of TCO. Even if they get the military equipment for free, it isn't free to maintain it. Claims that there is little to no cost involved in purchasing military equipment isn't even a good lie.
No, a plea bargain is a forced confession under the duress of being threatened with being tried for extra charges that the prosecutor does not believe you can legitimately be convicted of.
You should re-read what you wrote. You are suggesting that Apple products are better because the scammers would need to get their victim to click on dangerous stuff instead of clicking on dangerous stuff like they would on a Windows machine.
Of course it does. In fact, your entire argument is complaining about property ownership at a national scale. You just can't see it because you think your shade of gray is better than other people's shade of gray.
Is that what that noise was? I think I might have woken up dumb this morning.
Everybody does not know that. I have no experience with GHB, and don't know anyone first hand that does. A search didn't find anything that said that. Do you have a link? I don't ask that to be snarky. I knew that it was usually put into alcohol, but had never heard anything about it requiring large quantities to function.
Given the simplicity of putting on nail polish, the drawback of wearing it would be pretty small. Remember, while the rate of drugging rapes is small across the whole population, there are a lot of women going to situations that they know have an inordinately high likelihood of someone raping them, and Not to mention, they are going already going into it with the intent of drugging themselves with a drug that induces poor judgement.
As with any security measure, it is a question of balancing convenience, cost, and risk. Going to a 3 year old's birthday party? Don't need it. Going to a frat party where you already know a couple of the guys are rapists? Yeah, the nail polish is probably a good idea.