Except, the one (believing in magical all-powerful beings that have a history of being cruel and petty) requires the active embrace of completely irrational BS... whereas taking up as a working theory the concept of something like Hawking Radiation (especially in the context of a proper scientific mindset, in which there is pure delight in being shown a new and better explanation) involves none of that baggage, and none of the word-view-corrupting philosophical compromises that come baked-in with religious mysticism as an explanation for the physical world.
What? That's the classic, repeated here a million times, "If you're willing to "believe" in [string theory/black hole evaporation/dark matter/whatever], that's the same as invoking God" meme. It's a meta-rant, all wrapped up in a succinct little code phrase. THAT was the off-topic bit. Pointing out that it's BS isn't off-topic, it's calling it what it is.
Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trotting out the much more polished responses that trained theologians use to try to explain the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, but unspeakably mean and petty God scenario. Professional theologians and similar shamans have a lot more practice and selling that concept than you do. Clearly:
Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it... agent orange. Did God create cancer?
Are you sticking with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god model? Well, since you're sticking with pure invented fantasy, that's actually a trick question, isn't it? But since that god is involved in every aspect of creation, then: yes. And even if you don't like that answer, there's the fact that despite is apparently boundless mercy and his ability to make otherwise physically impossible things happen (including bringing people back from the dead during publicity stunts), he really doesn't are if pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent infants (and millions of other people) die in agony after months of suffering. Who cares if man is capable of inducing cancer. Are you proposing that ALL such horrible fates, including every way in which a toddler can be made ill and prematurely die in misery is the result of human action? No? I see.
Or put it in another way, "God allows evil, because without a choice, there is no chance to choose"
I see. So, things like childhood bone cancer, or being born with a major heart defect, etc., is just people choosing. OK.
ON the other hand, you being human and being your own god have to answer for the evil you allow to exist. Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists.
You really are new at this, aren't you? Are you actually saying that the only measuring stick for evil is that which a particular bronze-age desert tribe or two jotted down, and had re-hashed by people centuries later for political reasons? That only people who follow that recipe are allowed to objectively weigh someone's actions as evil? Hint: it's possible to objectively define a value system (which then allows you to separate things into good and evil) without even once having to invoke magical invisible all-powerful but part-time and petty gods. In fact, it's a lot EASIER to define a rational code of ethics/morals if you're NOT using made of fairly tales as the basis for them, philosophically. Why? Because that way you don't have to paint over all of the BS mixed premises, loopholes, and please-don't-look-behind-the-curtain nonsense that comes with basing your value system on imaginary magic.
And don't lie to me saying you don't allow evil, even by your own standards, you allow it. Which makes you pretty hypocritical.
Have you poured your nice strawman a cup of coffee yet this morning? He's probably getting tired.
You know, and I know, that people who immediately trot out some scorn for those "believing" in so far unobserved things like Hawking radiation/black hole evaporation will sometimes equate that willingness to (for now) accept such things as plausible working theories... with being the same as having faith in anthropomorphic deities. My point is that it's a crappy analogy, and the GP to which I was responding was basically trolling. But because there seem to be a large number of people who actually don't understand the the difference, it's worth contrasting the two things, as opposed to conflating them, as was trollishly done.
I'm pretty sure that's not what he's trying to say. But if that's your take on it, why are putting words in the mouth of a god that also sees to it that small, innocent children die in agony of cancer? Are you a paid representative working on a spin campaign, or just a fantasist?
On the other hand, maybe you're a satirist, making fun of the GP, who has put forth a commonly proposed explanation for the non-apocalyptic nature of putative mini-black-holes. His embrace of that explanation isn't the least bit like assigning a personality to a fabricated, omniscient, all-powerful (and therefore unspeakably cruel) imaginary friend/god and then making up reports of what that imaginary being thinks and wants. So regardless of how serious or satirical you're being, bad show.
Exactly. Apart from manners. If one of your neighbors turns out to not rise to the same level of manners that you do, are feeling the right, then, to take out a shotgun and destroy some of their property? No? Because that's what this is about.
Yup, that's it. You say that it happens "countless" times and on a "regular basis." You manage to cite three examples, some of which are decades old. Someone points out that you're blowing smoke on the subject, and now - in order to avoid having to admit that you're just ranting nonsense - off you run pretending you're offended. What are you, a twelve year old girl? That's the only demographic in which such shallow theatrics pass as a way to avoid telling the truth. Enjoy your next attempt to spout BS in hopes you'll get an uninformed, witless audience. That doesn't exist here.
I have read that link, and hundreds of pages of legal opinions, regulations, and related material. Unless, in this case, local municipal, county, or Kentucky state laws explicitly provides for trespass prosecution in the case of using air space that the federal agency with statutory authority in matter doesn't think is the least bit in control of the guy 200' below in his back yard... then there's no there, there. Again: what's the next crime you had in mind? The police on the spot didn't think there was anything approaching trespass involved.
No, she mentioned it to point out that she was governor of a state that's a lot closer to a semi-hostile foreign power, and more thoughtful about the implications of that than would be the community organizer from Chicago (who had never been in charge of state police, let alone armed national guard installations). She wasn't presidential material, but nor did she claim that the right-next-doorness of Russia was an example of foreign policy experience. Her point was that when you govern a state with a huge energy and fishing and mining economy that's a stone's throw from a looming competitor in those same areas, it becomes part of your daily thought process. She's a clumsy speaker and has some wacky ideological quirks (mostly from having been raised in a religious family culture), but she wasn't wrong to point out, simply in passing, that having Russia and Canada as your next door neighbors while you're governor is different than having Indiana and Missouri as neighbors when you're a community organizer, whatever that actually is.
Wrong, in a fire-fight civilians don't have to stick around - they have a chance to get away without getting killed. Not so with drones.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just continuing to make shit up. Well, at least you're consistent.
But it would be good for you to look some people in the eye and tell them that the thousands of their innocent, non-combatant fellow villagers and countrymen who've died during ground fights between various parties are only dead because they never heard your wise words about they should have just left. I'm sure now they're thinking, "Doh! We had no idea that we could have just left, and instead we were killed in the thousands by ISIS, by the Syrian government, by Iranian special forces, by sectarian IEDs, by Taliban fighters who don't care who's in the crossfire... man, if only we'd asked MrL0G1C, we would have realized that we could just leave!"
Instead they're thinking things like, "Well, it's nice that fight is over, because that caravan of Taliban killers just got hit in an airstrike before they even made it into our town, and none of us had to die."
Yeah, I can see how you'd prefer the fake scenario you're preaching instead of reality. People who live around fighting insurgents... they should just leave! Great plan. Millions of people who would love to get out from under the thumbs of such insurgents and the people they're fighting with are just too dumb to take your advice, right?
Drones are the weapon of cowards without morals.
Just like rifles, right? You much prefer hand-to-hand combat with clubs and knives? Then it's brave and moral? Or is it possible that the tool has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of why it's a good idea to stop a row of ISIS or Taliban trucks from rolling into the next village they're going to decapitate?
It's pretty meaningless has nothing much to do with the original post.
Sure it does. The original post spouts a bunch of BS about cops shooting people on "regular basis" and "countless times," and I'm pointing out that your vague, hand-wavy, no-context, no-citations, no-hard-numbers BS is, in fact, BS. You don't like being asked to be specific, so you're trying to pretend that being called out on it is meaningless. But it's not. You said something, and it's wrong, and you're being told it's wrong. Sorry you don't like that, so much that you're willing to try to continually change the subject, but it's what YOU BS'ed about that's being responded to. And of course you haven't offered a single scrap of more salient detail to counter that (which you can't, of course), and THAT IS THE POINT. You're just making stuff up for rhetorical reasons, and got caught. Now you can continue to try to blame the person who called you on it, or you can actually say something that's based in reality.
You're confusing commercial use with recreational use. The pending rules apply only to commercial use. The guy whose quad was shot down was not flying commercially. But that doesn't change the law with respect to one's right to shoot it down.
And FWIW, just because the FAA's pending rules are treating even cheap little quads as you-gotta-be-licensed aircraft for commercial use does NOT mean that quad operators are liking the idea. Most will say quite the opposite. At least at that scale, where it's ridiculous.
I do use some DJI gear. His was the newest version of their Phantom platform, and yes indeed the iPad (which is active during the flight as a ground station and video downlink through the controlling TX) does record the key flight data. And no, this is NOT something most people - even very skilled people - would be able to gracefully hack, and then play back on the iPad app as shown in the video. Whether or not he had his home point set correctly, that flight ended with being shot at at WELL over 100' in the air, and probably close to 200'.
No where in your argument do you explain why it is ok to kill innocent men women and children with remote controlled drones.
Why should I argue against a bogus strawman from you? You can't complain that I'm defending a position that I don't hold, though I can see why you'd try to spin in that way, in order to avoid the substance of the matter. The classic strawman maneuver, used to distract from weak positions.
Cowardly, by the way, is spending your day blowing up women in children in vegetable markets or school buses because they are insufficiently Islamic, and then retreating to your hideout in a village, surrounding yourself with other women and children so that if someone finds you and uses force to stop you from continuing your campaign of preplanned, systematic murder of innocents, that with any luck (for PR purposes) some of the innocent people in which you've embedded yourself will also be hurt of killed. That's being a coward.
Your fabrication of a phony moral distinction between killing a mass murderer in an airstrike and killing them by sending in a battalion of troops in armored vehicles for a protracted bloody firefight (guaranteed to impact more innocent people) is especially craven. What you're afraid to say is what you actually mean. You think that, for example, people trying to set up schools and aid for innocent women and children in areas like rural Afghanistan should in fact be open to uncontested slaughter by your preferred protagonists, Taliban murderers.
Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.
That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna. And with respect to laws against shooting at a Cessna? The FAA has more than once pointed out that they apply just well to anything else someone puts up in the air - weather balloons, RC planes, you name it.
If the guy flying the quad knows he isn't doing anything wrong, then he's really not under any obligation to go door to door telling people that, just like they might see an airplane go over their house dozens of times a day, they might see a toy quadcopter flying one or two hundred feet up in the air. If he's down at below-tree-level to make some shot of the offended party's neighbor's house, and has to cut through the offended party's yard at 20' off the ground, then good manners says coordinate in advance. But that (low altitude cruising and loitering over pissed-off-guy's yard) doesn't sound like what happened here, at all.
I have drones that log flight controller and sensor data to a completely separate onboard memory device. The camera's SD card isn't where that telemetry is stored. In other cases, there is good flight telemetry recorded on the ground during the flight. Depends on how the rig is built, and which hardware you're using.
That part of the story isn't missing. The police who were on the scene decided he wasn't a peeping tom, wasn't harassing anybody, and wasn't disturbing the peace. To the contrary, they decided that the guy letting loose with a firearm in a suburban setting - not the guy flying his toy copter - was a complete jackass.
No, you're the one hand-waving and using vague or - on the face of it - ridiculous language because you think it's making a point. Which it's not. Now we're talking "across the world?" So, you're willing to lump police in, say, Denmark or the US with, say, the police in China? So, when the police in Iran, working for a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, gun down democracy-minded protesters, you're willing to lump that in with your all-purpose ranting about US policy? Your use of words like "countless" shows how anxious you are to avoid ANY sort of context, specificity, or intellectual honesty when it comes to topic. Pretty much like you handle everything you've been stamping your feet about here - all shrill, no substance.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm pointing out that you're not even MAKING an argument, you're just whining with no context and no facts to back up your "regular basis" type BS remarks. And you don't like being called on it, so you just trot out another vague bit of whiny complaining designed to distract from the fact that you're unable to back up what you say.
Trying using precise words that actually mean something. The act of doing so will focus your mind on what's real and what's not, what's related and what's not, and what's persuasive and what's not. Right now, you're coming across like an unprepared junior high school debate team participant that makes the classic mistake of thinking that sounding sufficiently emotional will change people's minds on something that's complex and important and far more nuanced than you're grasping.
Countless? Meaning, too many times to count? But we can count every traffic citation ever written (millions of them) or count untold thousands of demonstrations where thousands of people gather in the street - sometimes burning down people's homes and businesses - without police firing a single shot. But that would take all the fun out of your narrative about "countless" examples of something that's actually very rare. Yeah, that's no fun. Let's not spoil your fiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, the one (believing in magical all-powerful beings that have a history of being cruel and petty) requires the active embrace of completely irrational BS ... whereas taking up as a working theory the concept of something like Hawking Radiation (especially in the context of a proper scientific mindset, in which there is pure delight in being shown a new and better explanation) involves none of that baggage, and none of the word-view-corrupting philosophical compromises that come baked-in with religious mysticism as an explanation for the physical world.
You saw the word "God"
What? That's the classic, repeated here a million times, "If you're willing to "believe" in [string theory/black hole evaporation/dark matter/whatever], that's the same as invoking God" meme. It's a meta-rant, all wrapped up in a succinct little code phrase. THAT was the off-topic bit. Pointing out that it's BS isn't off-topic, it's calling it what it is.
I am not a theologian
Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trotting out the much more polished responses that trained theologians use to try to explain the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, but unspeakably mean and petty God scenario. Professional theologians and similar shamans have a lot more practice and selling that concept than you do. Clearly:
Man creates fancy cancer causing agent, lets call it ... agent orange. Did God create cancer?
Are you sticking with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god model? Well, since you're sticking with pure invented fantasy, that's actually a trick question, isn't it? But since that god is involved in every aspect of creation, then: yes. And even if you don't like that answer, there's the fact that despite is apparently boundless mercy and his ability to make otherwise physically impossible things happen (including bringing people back from the dead during publicity stunts), he really doesn't are if pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent infants (and millions of other people) die in agony after months of suffering. Who cares if man is capable of inducing cancer. Are you proposing that ALL such horrible fates, including every way in which a toddler can be made ill and prematurely die in misery is the result of human action? No? I see.
Or put it in another way, "God allows evil, because without a choice, there is no chance to choose"
I see. So, things like childhood bone cancer, or being born with a major heart defect, etc., is just people choosing. OK.
ON the other hand, you being human and being your own god have to answer for the evil you allow to exist. Oh wait, being an atheist, you cannot even say evil exists.
You really are new at this, aren't you? Are you actually saying that the only measuring stick for evil is that which a particular bronze-age desert tribe or two jotted down, and had re-hashed by people centuries later for political reasons? That only people who follow that recipe are allowed to objectively weigh someone's actions as evil? Hint: it's possible to objectively define a value system (which then allows you to separate things into good and evil) without even once having to invoke magical invisible all-powerful but part-time and petty gods. In fact, it's a lot EASIER to define a rational code of ethics/morals if you're NOT using made of fairly tales as the basis for them, philosophically. Why? Because that way you don't have to paint over all of the BS mixed premises, loopholes, and please-don't-look-behind-the-curtain nonsense that comes with basing your value system on imaginary magic.
And don't lie to me saying you don't allow evil, even by your own standards, you allow it. Which makes you pretty hypocritical.
Have you poured your nice strawman a cup of coffee yet this morning? He's probably getting tired.
I see somebody has a topic they want to rant about.
Nope, just laying down the counter-meme for the toxic "If you believe in Hawking radiation it's just like believing in the Jude-Christian God" meme.
You know, and I know, that people who immediately trot out some scorn for those "believing" in so far unobserved things like Hawking radiation/black hole evaporation will sometimes equate that willingness to (for now) accept such things as plausible working theories... with being the same as having faith in anthropomorphic deities. My point is that it's a crappy analogy, and the GP to which I was responding was basically trolling. But because there seem to be a large number of people who actually don't understand the the difference, it's worth contrasting the two things, as opposed to conflating them, as was trollishly done.
I'm pretty sure that's not what he's trying to say. But if that's your take on it, why are putting words in the mouth of a god that also sees to it that small, innocent children die in agony of cancer? Are you a paid representative working on a spin campaign, or just a fantasist?
On the other hand, maybe you're a satirist, making fun of the GP, who has put forth a commonly proposed explanation for the non-apocalyptic nature of putative mini-black-holes. His embrace of that explanation isn't the least bit like assigning a personality to a fabricated, omniscient, all-powerful (and therefore unspeakably cruel) imaginary friend/god and then making up reports of what that imaginary being thinks and wants. So regardless of how serious or satirical you're being, bad show.
Apart from manners you mean?
Exactly. Apart from manners. If one of your neighbors turns out to not rise to the same level of manners that you do, are feeling the right, then, to take out a shotgun and destroy some of their property? No? Because that's what this is about.
Yup, that's it. You say that it happens "countless" times and on a "regular basis." You manage to cite three examples, some of which are decades old. Someone points out that you're blowing smoke on the subject, and now - in order to avoid having to admit that you're just ranting nonsense - off you run pretending you're offended. What are you, a twelve year old girl? That's the only demographic in which such shallow theatrics pass as a way to avoid telling the truth. Enjoy your next attempt to spout BS in hopes you'll get an uninformed, witless audience. That doesn't exist here.
I have read that link, and hundreds of pages of legal opinions, regulations, and related material. Unless, in this case, local municipal, county, or Kentucky state laws explicitly provides for trespass prosecution in the case of using air space that the federal agency with statutory authority in matter doesn't think is the least bit in control of the guy 200' below in his back yard... then there's no there, there. Again: what's the next crime you had in mind? The police on the spot didn't think there was anything approaching trespass involved.
Russia's demands:
Get your fucking military out of half the world's countries.
No, she mentioned it to point out that she was governor of a state that's a lot closer to a semi-hostile foreign power, and more thoughtful about the implications of that than would be the community organizer from Chicago (who had never been in charge of state police, let alone armed national guard installations). She wasn't presidential material, but nor did she claim that the right-next-doorness of Russia was an example of foreign policy experience. Her point was that when you govern a state with a huge energy and fishing and mining economy that's a stone's throw from a looming competitor in those same areas, it becomes part of your daily thought process. She's a clumsy speaker and has some wacky ideological quirks (mostly from having been raised in a religious family culture), but she wasn't wrong to point out, simply in passing, that having Russia and Canada as your next door neighbors while you're governor is different than having Indiana and Missouri as neighbors when you're a community organizer, whatever that actually is.
it's a continuation of the rot and decay that started in 25 years ago with the collapse of the USSR
No, that rot and decay started 93 years ago with the formation of the USSR.
Wrong, in a fire-fight civilians don't have to stick around - they have a chance to get away without getting killed. Not so with drones.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you're just continuing to make shit up. Well, at least you're consistent.
... man, if only we'd asked MrL0G1C, we would have realized that we could just leave!"
... they should just leave! Great plan. Millions of people who would love to get out from under the thumbs of such insurgents and the people they're fighting with are just too dumb to take your advice, right?
But it would be good for you to look some people in the eye and tell them that the thousands of their innocent, non-combatant fellow villagers and countrymen who've died during ground fights between various parties are only dead because they never heard your wise words about they should have just left. I'm sure now they're thinking, "Doh! We had no idea that we could have just left, and instead we were killed in the thousands by ISIS, by the Syrian government, by Iranian special forces, by sectarian IEDs, by Taliban fighters who don't care who's in the crossfire
Instead they're thinking things like, "Well, it's nice that fight is over, because that caravan of Taliban killers just got hit in an airstrike before they even made it into our town, and none of us had to die."
Yeah, I can see how you'd prefer the fake scenario you're preaching instead of reality. People who live around fighting insurgents
Drones are the weapon of cowards without morals.
Just like rifles, right? You much prefer hand-to-hand combat with clubs and knives? Then it's brave and moral? Or is it possible that the tool has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings of why it's a good idea to stop a row of ISIS or Taliban trucks from rolling into the next village they're going to decapitate?
It's pretty meaningless has nothing much to do with the original post.
Sure it does. The original post spouts a bunch of BS about cops shooting people on "regular basis" and "countless times," and I'm pointing out that your vague, hand-wavy, no-context, no-citations, no-hard-numbers BS is, in fact, BS. You don't like being asked to be specific, so you're trying to pretend that being called out on it is meaningless. But it's not. You said something, and it's wrong, and you're being told it's wrong. Sorry you don't like that, so much that you're willing to try to continually change the subject, but it's what YOU BS'ed about that's being responded to. And of course you haven't offered a single scrap of more salient detail to counter that (which you can't, of course), and THAT IS THE POINT. You're just making stuff up for rhetorical reasons, and got caught. Now you can continue to try to blame the person who called you on it, or you can actually say something that's based in reality.
You're confusing commercial use with recreational use. The pending rules apply only to commercial use. The guy whose quad was shot down was not flying commercially. But that doesn't change the law with respect to one's right to shoot it down.
And FWIW, just because the FAA's pending rules are treating even cheap little quads as you-gotta-be-licensed aircraft for commercial use does NOT mean that quad operators are liking the idea. Most will say quite the opposite. At least at that scale, where it's ridiculous.
Flying through the air above your property is not criminal trespass. What's your next guess?
I do use some DJI gear. His was the newest version of their Phantom platform, and yes indeed the iPad (which is active during the flight as a ground station and video downlink through the controlling TX) does record the key flight data. And no, this is NOT something most people - even very skilled people - would be able to gracefully hack, and then play back on the iPad app as shown in the video. Whether or not he had his home point set correctly, that flight ended with being shot at at WELL over 100' in the air, and probably close to 200'.
No where in your argument do you explain why it is ok to kill innocent men women and children with remote controlled drones.
Why should I argue against a bogus strawman from you? You can't complain that I'm defending a position that I don't hold, though I can see why you'd try to spin in that way, in order to avoid the substance of the matter. The classic strawman maneuver, used to distract from weak positions.
Cowardly, by the way, is spending your day blowing up women in children in vegetable markets or school buses because they are insufficiently Islamic, and then retreating to your hideout in a village, surrounding yourself with other women and children so that if someone finds you and uses force to stop you from continuing your campaign of preplanned, systematic murder of innocents, that with any luck (for PR purposes) some of the innocent people in which you've embedded yourself will also be hurt of killed. That's being a coward.
Your fabrication of a phony moral distinction between killing a mass murderer in an airstrike and killing them by sending in a battalion of troops in armored vehicles for a protracted bloody firefight (guaranteed to impact more innocent people) is especially craven. What you're afraid to say is what you actually mean. You think that, for example, people trying to set up schools and aid for innocent women and children in areas like rural Afghanistan should in fact be open to uncontested slaughter by your preferred protagonists, Taliban murderers.
Don't try to embellish, the guy was flying a quadrocopter not a Cessna. It is a toy and not an aircraft. So that law does not apply.
That's not what the FAA says. In fact, if that neighbor had been flying his toy quad for $15 to check someone's gutters for debris, the FAA says that he needs an actual pilots license, same as he'd need to fly a Cessna. And with respect to laws against shooting at a Cessna? The FAA has more than once pointed out that they apply just well to anything else someone puts up in the air - weather balloons, RC planes, you name it.
Which crimes, specifically, did you have in mind?
If the guy flying the quad knows he isn't doing anything wrong, then he's really not under any obligation to go door to door telling people that, just like they might see an airplane go over their house dozens of times a day, they might see a toy quadcopter flying one or two hundred feet up in the air. If he's down at below-tree-level to make some shot of the offended party's neighbor's house, and has to cut through the offended party's yard at 20' off the ground, then good manners says coordinate in advance. But that (low altitude cruising and loitering over pissed-off-guy's yard) doesn't sound like what happened here, at all.
Then where did they get the telemetry data?
I have drones that log flight controller and sensor data to a completely separate onboard memory device. The camera's SD card isn't where that telemetry is stored. In other cases, there is good flight telemetry recorded on the ground during the flight. Depends on how the rig is built, and which hardware you're using.
That part of the story isn't missing. The police who were on the scene decided he wasn't a peeping tom, wasn't harassing anybody, and wasn't disturbing the peace. To the contrary, they decided that the guy letting loose with a firearm in a suburban setting - not the guy flying his toy copter - was a complete jackass.
No, you're the one hand-waving and using vague or - on the face of it - ridiculous language because you think it's making a point. Which it's not. Now we're talking "across the world?" So, you're willing to lump police in, say, Denmark or the US with, say, the police in China? So, when the police in Iran, working for a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship, gun down democracy-minded protesters, you're willing to lump that in with your all-purpose ranting about US policy? Your use of words like "countless" shows how anxious you are to avoid ANY sort of context, specificity, or intellectual honesty when it comes to topic. Pretty much like you handle everything you've been stamping your feet about here - all shrill, no substance.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm pointing out that you're not even MAKING an argument, you're just whining with no context and no facts to back up your "regular basis" type BS remarks. And you don't like being called on it, so you just trot out another vague bit of whiny complaining designed to distract from the fact that you're unable to back up what you say.
Trying using precise words that actually mean something. The act of doing so will focus your mind on what's real and what's not, what's related and what's not, and what's persuasive and what's not. Right now, you're coming across like an unprepared junior high school debate team participant that makes the classic mistake of thinking that sounding sufficiently emotional will change people's minds on something that's complex and important and far more nuanced than you're grasping.
Countless? Meaning, too many times to count? But we can count every traffic citation ever written (millions of them) or count untold thousands of demonstrations where thousands of people gather in the street - sometimes burning down people's homes and businesses - without police firing a single shot. But that would take all the fun out of your narrative about "countless" examples of something that's actually very rare. Yeah, that's no fun. Let's not spoil your fiction.