No, people who want to have some entertainment on their own terms, without paying for it, "induce" the piracy. No, they don't even "induce," they simply "commit" it. They can't be troubled to wait for a DVD or to grab it through Amazon, etc. No... they have to have it RIGHT NOW, because they are entitled to being entertained by the work of other people who spend millions of dollars.
Induce. Oh, please.
Yeah, yeah. And people who wear overpriced basketball shoes in the wrong part of down are inducing other people to shoot them in the head to take them, too. Is this inductive reasoning you're using, here?
HBO is asking for it, man! Did you see that short skirt that HBO was wearing?
That sure is a lot of hot air to avoid explaining how talking about events in Syria is "war mongering." I know, I know, you can't bring yourself to admit that you're just spouting BS, and have no sense of causality, and are a completely invertebrate moral relativist with situational ethics and an abiding hatred of the US. But since everything you write makes all of that clear, why not just come out and say it? Just that one moment of honesty will make you feel so much better. Then you can move on to the next step, which is using phrases for what they actually mean. Then you'll be making some headway.
There is racial unity here that you are completely ignoring.
Which is why NK only talks about turning SK into a sea of fire, I guess. It's because they love the South and only want to scare them into joining their socialist worker's paradise by pointing out that being aligned with the rest of the world's economy means eventually dying in a sea of fire. So it's a racially unifying, loving sea of fie that they're talking about. That makes sense, I guess. I'm sure you're right, they would never nuke the south. They'd just use conventional weapons to start the sea of fire, so that they can maintain the prospects of still embracing their racially unified, if burned alive, brothers. It all makes sense now that you point that out. After all, the north's invasion and slaughter decades ago was really for the south's own good.
Neither can I what? You haven't asked a question. You've just been waving your hands and making vague assertions without any details, and pretending that talking about what other people are doing is "war mongering." As far as I can tell, the only person here who is obsessed about anything is you. You're dead set on preserving the conditions in which little wars fueled by idiotic inter-Islamic racism and sectarianism can become regional catastrophes. You're a refugee fetishist who prefers hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Assad's murder crews and swamping Jordan's ability to feed and care for them. Why? Because you like the slow burn, the rot, and the death that comes day by day from people like Assad, rather than admitting that the Baathist thugocracy approach to life is a horror show.
What's he paying you, anyway? Or is it his buddies in Russia and Iran and China that are paying you to help perpetuate the little war that you like so well?
In other words, no, you can't answer a simple question honestly. Which makes your ranting about honesty really hilarious. Thanks for showing your true colors.
More importantly, thanks for also demonstrating that you don't actually understand what the phrase "war mongering" actually means. With the sort of loose, rudderless thought process you prefer, I think we can safely say that you are a war monger. You like it when people like Saddam invade countries like Kuwait. You like it when the Taliban drag school teachers out into the street and shoot them in the head for teaching girls to read. You thrive on the existence of countless flaming little wars and conflicts, in the ongoing effort to crush democracy, and in the growth of power among backwards tyrants murdering for Allah and the rest. You're the worst sort of war monger, because you're too dumb to realize you are one.
You're a real sucker for the same old propaganda and lies that got us into so many wars.
In other words, you have absolutely no explanation for why observing the fact that a regime is slaughtering its own people is "war mongering." You've carefully avoided addressing reality in order to call someone else names. It's a strange reaction - a form of shrill argument that normally ends once one grows out of grade school.
There's no way to argue with that.
You're not arguing about anything. You're making pointless personal attacks without even beginning to address the substance of the matter. Which is a sure sign that you know your understanding of the substance is poor, or that the point you're trying to make can't possibly hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Having no point to make, or cravenly pretending that you've got something to say about the person delivering facts to the conversation - sure signs of someone who just wants attention, and who lashes out at anyone who actually has the patience to press them for some indication that they can back up their empty rhetoric.
So, let's try something, so show how cowardly you actually are. A simple yes or no question:
Is the regime in Syria using gunships and artillery to kill its own civilians?
I'll bet you can't just say yes or no. But I'll stick around to find out.
So, you still believe all the lies that were used to start the last wars.
Lies? Let's see...I'm guessing that you think:
The Taliban was not actually running Afghanistan at the point of a sword, or harboring Al Queda. Or, they were happy to give up the organization that attacked embassies, the Cole, NYC, etc... all an illusion created by the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Illuminati, right? Right!
Saddam didn't invade Kuwait. That was all staged, and the thousands of troops, tanks, and supply chains set up for that invasion was actually faked by the Bush administration. Or, maybe that DID happen, but you're thinking that everything that Sadddam did after he agreed to the terms that ended the ongoing destruction of his military when he got kicked out was correct, but every news agency and government in the world lied, right? He actually WAS allowing inspectors everywhere they wanted to do. He actually WAS showing what he did with mountains of VX gas (instead of trucking it to Syria). He actually was NOT slaughtering thousands of people with WMDs (all fake dead bodies, of course!). All of the time he spend shooting at US and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones was actually fake. All of the long-range missiles he continued to make and import from North Korea - just props, right (and the fact that he was able to shoot those props into places like Israel - all just CGI, of course). The UN's documentation of his scamming the Oil For Food program to rebuild his military and more palaces - fake, of course (all of those well fed soldiers and new weapons were actors and props shipped in by the Bush administration).
No point going on, since you already know you're a trolling fool.
How is Assad's slaughter of his own people "our" war? How was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "our" war? How was the Taliban's brutal tyranny in Afghanistan "our" war? Your cognitive dissonance on this topic is pretty amazing. I suppose you'd consider the US's involvement in beating back German and Japanese tyranny to also be "our" war, right? Please, be specific.
Same bullshit we heard before. You people can't stop, can you?
What a lazy, pointless attempt to avoid talking about reality. Classic ad hominem response to anyone who points out reality. Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed when you don't even bother to try to explain away Assad's actions? Or the complicity of Iran? Regardless, how is it, again, that simply pointing out what other people are doing as they slaughter their own citizens is "war mongering?"
So, observing the war that someone else is conducting against the people in his country, and paying attention to the fact that he has WMDs, and that he is a meat puppet for Iran - big sponsors of terrorism and medieval theo-thuggery throughout the region... that's war-mongering? When a meteorologist tells you that there's a hurricane moving up the coast, do you tell them to stop starting storms?
Somebody else meaning the people (in case you forgot where taxes come from)
No, meaning the businesses providing the services, the medical students paying tuition, and the consumer activity that makes it possible for any businesses to want to bother to invest in infrastructure in the first place. Taxes pay for very, very little of what all of the Information Wants To Be Free basement dwellers insist should be their playground.
It's really too bad. Computing in the 80s-90s was about indvidual empowerment..
Right, as long as somebody else paid to run all the infrastructure so you could have a playground to be free and rail against the people paying the tab. Classic.
The only reason I have any motivation to address the topic is because empty-headed, irrational people are cravenly making an issue out of it for political gain. You want to reduce my liberty, and I don't want you to. If you didn't want to reduce my liberty, I'd have nothing to talk about. Are you lucid enough to follow that?
The topic is not home-made objects, it is home-made gun components.
So, what's a home-made gun component? A pipe? a curved bit of sheet metal? Are you so obtuse that you don't grasp the uselessness of even factory-made gun parts - even once they're assembled into a working firearm - until a human being decides to pick it up, load it with ammunition, and actually do something with it? Are you equally wound up about home-made car parts, on the off chance someone decides to run down a pedestrian, later, with their car? This strange, magical-thinking mode, wherein people consider inanimate objects to have special intrinsic powers... is crazy. The gun nuts are the people who think guns have their own will, the power of mind control, or the ability to do something on their own without human purpose and action. Parts are parts. Human action is the only thing that's dangerous.
Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.
Why would you have a hard time arguing about it? There's no need. Violent crime has been going steadily down since the 1980's. There is less of it now than there was 5, 10, or 20 years ago. What's more pervasive is social media saturation coverage of it. There are localized exceptions, of course. Look at Chicago. They have a gang problem, and a local culture problem, not a gun problem. Because there are places all around the country that have from slightly more options in owning guns to wildly more liberty in that regard than Chicago... and they don't have gang-bangers killing each other non stop. It ain't about the guns.
If this kid has access to a 3D printer, however, suddenly he/she has access to a deadly weapon - that can harm not just themselves, but others, too - with just $100 in Internet-sourced parts.
That same kid could also slit his own wrists or hang himself with $5 worth of stuff bought at Home Depot... or spend maybe $40, and make an utterly devastating bomb that could easily kill a classroom full of kids. Again, all with internet-sourced information, and off-the-shelf consumer goods.
I'm simply acknowledging a potential problem and asking why they aren't considering what we can do to help prevent unnecessary tragedy down the road.
But that potential is already present in a thousand other forms - from grabbing the parent's car keys, to playing with matches and gasoline, to using kitchen knives or a bit of amonia and bleach. "Unnecessary" tragedies already take place constantly. Most noticeably, when young people get behind the wheel. Wrong-headed or poorly trained/supervised kids kill themselves and other people with cars way, way more often than they do with any sort of weapon, guns included. Where's the appropriately hand-wringing? Rifles (of any kind) are used far, far less than bare hands and blunt objects to kill people. Having the ability to print the lower receiver section of a gun that still requires machined parts and ammunition isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.
The point is that fixating on such a statistically small issue with notions of limiting the freedom of millions and millions of sane, rational people who never ever hurt anyone... is not only ineffective, it's philosophically wrong, too. Violence is a cultural problem, not a tool problem. Putting the government in the role of controlling tools and making the case that that will fix what's wrong the the narrow part of the culture that sees violently eliminating a rival gang member as a validating and important thing to do... craziness. Because it embraces a complete overturning of causality, and entrenching that mind set is completely toxic on so many other levels.
But I know why people do it. Because they're uncomfortable making judgments about other people's world views (unless they're complaining about gun owners, of course!). Moral relativists find comfort in blaming inanimate objects for human behavior because it lets them off the hook of having to reconcile their absurd notions of nobody-is-ever-to-blame-for-their-own-actions (except evil gun companies) political correctness blather.
With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?
"Gun issues" are only at the front of any discussion because specific interest groups and politicians who pander to them are using a crazy person's already illegal acts to try to cement significant new reductions in liberty and increases in Nanny State invasiveness. Those broader goals are always at the top of that demographic's agenda, and they use whichever current events are handy in that mission. This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention. It never did. It has nothing to do with what crazy, broken people do with objects they buy or make.
but as a society we've decided that you're not allowed to shove your problems onto other people like that
Unless you're adding trillions of dollars of brand new, stifling debt to those other/future people's paycheck burden. Then it's OK. Those people are temporal neighbors, not geographic neighbors. Screw 'em, right? We've got some overpriced lab tests to subsidize so that a doctor can fend off spurious malpractice suits surrounding the impending death of a 95 year old cancer patient.
I don't understand, most windfarms I've seen in California or Nevada are out in the middle of *nowhere.*
Exactly. The people who are complaining are the ones in denser (typically, eastern) areas where the windmills are going up a couple hundreds meters from someone's kitchen window.
Most people I know thnk that the windmills look kind of cool. Your declaring both that they are ugly, and that they cause people stress because of that ugliness is conjecture.
I think they look cool in some circumstances and really hideous in others. If my peaceful rural home and view were suddenly dominated by those things, I guarantee that I would be stressed by the new lack of peace and quiet and the devaluation of my home and property. So, no conjecture there. Makes perfect sense.
A pizza analogy - Awesome!
A delivery pizza analogy would be better, because that would also involve a car.
Holy hell, you just told us that if someone makes something up, it's as good as real.
No, he just told us that it's possible for someone who's experiencing something to only later come to realize what's causing it. Like thinking you have a cat allergy, when it turns out you have a ragweed allergy. Or thinking you've got gut or sinus issues when it turns out living under the shadow of giant spinning 747 wings might actually be troublesome, and explain what some people experience. It's certainly easy enough to do a blind test. Just like proving that complaints about "WiFi" allergies are nonsense by doing a blind test where the supposed victim can't guess if the local transceiver is on or off, prevent the person living next to a giant wind farm from being able to see if the blades are being allowed to spin, and see if there's a difference one way or the other. Of course, since you can hear them wooshing around 24x7, that might be a harder test to do, blindly.
So the astroturfing actual works, proof right there in your post.
So what you're saying is that it's NOT an interesting topic, because you don't want it to be interesting.
Ever worked for hours straight with intense low-frequency sounds washing over you? No? I have. Doesn't matter, I guess, because you're more interested in ad hominem dismissal than you are in any sort of actual, constructive examination of the subject. I'm guessing you're probably also one of the guys that says that videos of flammable water coming out of well taps in some fracking areas is just faked-up astroturfing and not worth directly addressing in conversation, right?
It's not about whether any particular person is legitimately impacted by the thrum-thrum-thrum of giant wings beating the air near their house 24x7. It's about the fact you consider an "interesting" mod to be some sort of troll. Which shows you to be the troll you are.
And your complaint is that a post from someone who works in the wind farm business remarked that the low-frequency throbbing from giant turbines is problematic for people getting their guts and sinus cavities pulsated all day, every day might just be a health issue? You're grousing that that got modded up as interesting?
So, I know people who think the same thing about May-December marriages, or people who marry immigrants, etc. Getting the government out of the business of financially favoring one set of people (the married ones) over another, it all goes away.
Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?
Slashdot Mirror
Their business model induces the piracy.
No, people who want to have some entertainment on their own terms, without paying for it, "induce" the piracy. No, they don't even "induce," they simply "commit" it. They can't be troubled to wait for a DVD or to grab it through Amazon, etc. No... they have to have it RIGHT NOW, because they are entitled to being entertained by the work of other people who spend millions of dollars.
Induce. Oh, please.
Yeah, yeah. And people who wear overpriced basketball shoes in the wrong part of down are inducing other people to shoot them in the head to take them, too. Is this inductive reasoning you're using, here?
HBO is asking for it, man! Did you see that short skirt that HBO was wearing?
That sure is a lot of hot air to avoid explaining how talking about events in Syria is "war mongering." I know, I know, you can't bring yourself to admit that you're just spouting BS, and have no sense of causality, and are a completely invertebrate moral relativist with situational ethics and an abiding hatred of the US. But since everything you write makes all of that clear, why not just come out and say it? Just that one moment of honesty will make you feel so much better. Then you can move on to the next step, which is using phrases for what they actually mean. Then you'll be making some headway.
There is racial unity here that you are completely ignoring.
Which is why NK only talks about turning SK into a sea of fire, I guess. It's because they love the South and only want to scare them into joining their socialist worker's paradise by pointing out that being aligned with the rest of the world's economy means eventually dying in a sea of fire. So it's a racially unifying, loving sea of fie that they're talking about. That makes sense, I guess. I'm sure you're right, they would never nuke the south. They'd just use conventional weapons to start the sea of fire, so that they can maintain the prospects of still embracing their racially unified, if burned alive, brothers. It all makes sense now that you point that out. After all, the north's invasion and slaughter decades ago was really for the south's own good.
None of their recent threats have been at South Korea
Other than the part where they talk about turning SK into a "sea of fire" and about "raining bullets on them" etc. Have you not been paying attention?
And neither can you
Neither can I what? You haven't asked a question. You've just been waving your hands and making vague assertions without any details, and pretending that talking about what other people are doing is "war mongering." As far as I can tell, the only person here who is obsessed about anything is you. You're dead set on preserving the conditions in which little wars fueled by idiotic inter-Islamic racism and sectarianism can become regional catastrophes. You're a refugee fetishist who prefers hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Assad's murder crews and swamping Jordan's ability to feed and care for them. Why? Because you like the slow burn, the rot, and the death that comes day by day from people like Assad, rather than admitting that the Baathist thugocracy approach to life is a horror show.
What's he paying you, anyway? Or is it his buddies in Russia and Iran and China that are paying you to help perpetuate the little war that you like so well?
In other words, no, you can't answer a simple question honestly. Which makes your ranting about honesty really hilarious. Thanks for showing your true colors.
More importantly, thanks for also demonstrating that you don't actually understand what the phrase "war mongering" actually means. With the sort of loose, rudderless thought process you prefer, I think we can safely say that you are a war monger. You like it when people like Saddam invade countries like Kuwait. You like it when the Taliban drag school teachers out into the street and shoot them in the head for teaching girls to read. You thrive on the existence of countless flaming little wars and conflicts, in the ongoing effort to crush democracy, and in the growth of power among backwards tyrants murdering for Allah and the rest. You're the worst sort of war monger, because you're too dumb to realize you are one.
You're a real sucker for the same old propaganda and lies that got us into so many wars.
In other words, you have absolutely no explanation for why observing the fact that a regime is slaughtering its own people is "war mongering." You've carefully avoided addressing reality in order to call someone else names. It's a strange reaction - a form of shrill argument that normally ends once one grows out of grade school.
There's no way to argue with that.
You're not arguing about anything. You're making pointless personal attacks without even beginning to address the substance of the matter. Which is a sure sign that you know your understanding of the substance is poor, or that the point you're trying to make can't possibly hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Having no point to make, or cravenly pretending that you've got something to say about the person delivering facts to the conversation - sure signs of someone who just wants attention, and who lashes out at anyone who actually has the patience to press them for some indication that they can back up their empty rhetoric.
So, let's try something, so show how cowardly you actually are. A simple yes or no question:
Is the regime in Syria using gunships and artillery to kill its own civilians?
I'll bet you can't just say yes or no. But I'll stick around to find out.
So, you still believe all the lies that were used to start the last wars.
Lies? Let's see...I'm guessing that you think:
... all an illusion created by the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Illuminati, right? Right!
The Taliban was not actually running Afghanistan at the point of a sword, or harboring Al Queda. Or, they were happy to give up the organization that attacked embassies, the Cole, NYC, etc
Saddam didn't invade Kuwait. That was all staged, and the thousands of troops, tanks, and supply chains set up for that invasion was actually faked by the Bush administration. Or, maybe that DID happen, but you're thinking that everything that Sadddam did after he agreed to the terms that ended the ongoing destruction of his military when he got kicked out was correct, but every news agency and government in the world lied, right? He actually WAS allowing inspectors everywhere they wanted to do. He actually WAS showing what he did with mountains of VX gas (instead of trucking it to Syria). He actually was NOT slaughtering thousands of people with WMDs (all fake dead bodies, of course!). All of the time he spend shooting at US and allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones was actually fake. All of the long-range missiles he continued to make and import from North Korea - just props, right (and the fact that he was able to shoot those props into places like Israel - all just CGI, of course). The UN's documentation of his scamming the Oil For Food program to rebuild his military and more palaces - fake, of course (all of those well fed soldiers and new weapons were actors and props shipped in by the Bush administration).
No point going on, since you already know you're a trolling fool.
You will do anything to rationalize your wars.
How is Assad's slaughter of his own people "our" war? How was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "our" war? How was the Taliban's brutal tyranny in Afghanistan "our" war? Your cognitive dissonance on this topic is pretty amazing. I suppose you'd consider the US's involvement in beating back German and Japanese tyranny to also be "our" war, right? Please, be specific.
Same bullshit we heard before. You people can't stop, can you?
What a lazy, pointless attempt to avoid talking about reality. Classic ad hominem response to anyone who points out reality. Aren't you just a little bit embarrassed when you don't even bother to try to explain away Assad's actions? Or the complicity of Iran? Regardless, how is it, again, that simply pointing out what other people are doing as they slaughter their own citizens is "war mongering?"
Stop with the war mongering please.
So, observing the war that someone else is conducting against the people in his country, and paying attention to the fact that he has WMDs, and that he is a meat puppet for Iran - big sponsors of terrorism and medieval theo-thuggery throughout the region ... that's war-mongering? When a meteorologist tells you that there's a hurricane moving up the coast, do you tell them to stop starting storms?
Somebody else meaning the people (in case you forgot where taxes come from)
No, meaning the businesses providing the services, the medical students paying tuition, and the consumer activity that makes it possible for any businesses to want to bother to invest in infrastructure in the first place. Taxes pay for very, very little of what all of the Information Wants To Be Free basement dwellers insist should be their playground.
It's really too bad. Computing in the 80s-90s was about indvidual empowerment..
Right, as long as somebody else paid to run all the infrastructure so you could have a playground to be free and rail against the people paying the tab. Classic.
including yourself
The only reason I have any motivation to address the topic is because empty-headed, irrational people are cravenly making an issue out of it for political gain. You want to reduce my liberty, and I don't want you to. If you didn't want to reduce my liberty, I'd have nothing to talk about. Are you lucid enough to follow that?
The topic is not home-made objects, it is home-made gun components.
So, what's a home-made gun component? A pipe? a curved bit of sheet metal? Are you so obtuse that you don't grasp the uselessness of even factory-made gun parts - even once they're assembled into a working firearm - until a human being decides to pick it up, load it with ammunition, and actually do something with it? Are you equally wound up about home-made car parts, on the off chance someone decides to run down a pedestrian, later, with their car? This strange, magical-thinking mode, wherein people consider inanimate objects to have special intrinsic powers ... is crazy. The gun nuts are the people who think guns have their own will, the power of mind control, or the ability to do something on their own without human purpose and action. Parts are parts. Human action is the only thing that's dangerous.
Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.
Why would you have a hard time arguing about it? There's no need. Violent crime has been going steadily down since the 1980's. There is less of it now than there was 5, 10, or 20 years ago. What's more pervasive is social media saturation coverage of it. There are localized exceptions, of course. Look at Chicago. They have a gang problem, and a local culture problem, not a gun problem. Because there are places all around the country that have from slightly more options in owning guns to wildly more liberty in that regard than Chicago ... and they don't have gang-bangers killing each other non stop. It ain't about the guns.
If this kid has access to a 3D printer, however, suddenly he/she has access to a deadly weapon - that can harm not just themselves, but others, too - with just $100 in Internet-sourced parts.
That same kid could also slit his own wrists or hang himself with $5 worth of stuff bought at Home Depot ... or spend maybe $40, and make an utterly devastating bomb that could easily kill a classroom full of kids. Again, all with internet-sourced information, and off-the-shelf consumer goods.
I'm simply acknowledging a potential problem and asking why they aren't considering what we can do to help prevent unnecessary tragedy down the road.
But that potential is already present in a thousand other forms - from grabbing the parent's car keys, to playing with matches and gasoline, to using kitchen knives or a bit of amonia and bleach. "Unnecessary" tragedies already take place constantly. Most noticeably, when young people get behind the wheel. Wrong-headed or poorly trained/supervised kids kill themselves and other people with cars way, way more often than they do with any sort of weapon, guns included. Where's the appropriately hand-wringing? Rifles (of any kind) are used far, far less than bare hands and blunt objects to kill people. Having the ability to print the lower receiver section of a gun that still requires machined parts and ammunition isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.
... is not only ineffective, it's philosophically wrong, too. Violence is a cultural problem, not a tool problem. Putting the government in the role of controlling tools and making the case that that will fix what's wrong the the narrow part of the culture that sees violently eliminating a rival gang member as a validating and important thing to do ... craziness. Because it embraces a complete overturning of causality, and entrenching that mind set is completely toxic on so many other levels.
The point is that fixating on such a statistically small issue with notions of limiting the freedom of millions and millions of sane, rational people who never ever hurt anyone
But I know why people do it. Because they're uncomfortable making judgments about other people's world views (unless they're complaining about gun owners, of course!). Moral relativists find comfort in blaming inanimate objects for human behavior because it lets them off the hook of having to reconcile their absurd notions of nobody-is-ever-to-blame-for-their-own-actions (except evil gun companies) political correctness blather.
With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?
"Gun issues" are only at the front of any discussion because specific interest groups and politicians who pander to them are using a crazy person's already illegal acts to try to cement significant new reductions in liberty and increases in Nanny State invasiveness. Those broader goals are always at the top of that demographic's agenda, and they use whichever current events are handy in that mission. This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention. It never did. It has nothing to do with what crazy, broken people do with objects they buy or make.
but as a society we've decided that you're not allowed to shove your problems onto other people like that
Unless you're adding trillions of dollars of brand new, stifling debt to those other/future people's paycheck burden. Then it's OK. Those people are temporal neighbors, not geographic neighbors. Screw 'em, right? We've got some overpriced lab tests to subsidize so that a doctor can fend off spurious malpractice suits surrounding the impending death of a 95 year old cancer patient.
I don't understand, most windfarms I've seen in California or Nevada are out in the middle of *nowhere.*
Exactly. The people who are complaining are the ones in denser (typically, eastern) areas where the windmills are going up a couple hundreds meters from someone's kitchen window.
Most people I know thnk that the windmills look kind of cool. Your declaring both that they are ugly, and that they cause people stress because of that ugliness is conjecture.
I think they look cool in some circumstances and really hideous in others. If my peaceful rural home and view were suddenly dominated by those things, I guarantee that I would be stressed by the new lack of peace and quiet and the devaluation of my home and property. So, no conjecture there. Makes perfect sense.
A pizza analogy - Awesome!
A delivery pizza analogy would be better, because that would also involve a car.
Holy hell, you just told us that if someone makes something up, it's as good as real.
No, he just told us that it's possible for someone who's experiencing something to only later come to realize what's causing it. Like thinking you have a cat allergy, when it turns out you have a ragweed allergy. Or thinking you've got gut or sinus issues when it turns out living under the shadow of giant spinning 747 wings might actually be troublesome, and explain what some people experience. It's certainly easy enough to do a blind test. Just like proving that complaints about "WiFi" allergies are nonsense by doing a blind test where the supposed victim can't guess if the local transceiver is on or off, prevent the person living next to a giant wind farm from being able to see if the blades are being allowed to spin, and see if there's a difference one way or the other. Of course, since you can hear them wooshing around 24x7, that might be a harder test to do, blindly.
but as far as i know, every such household has either been paid off or relocated ... The claimed negative health effects are spurious.
Why did they expensively relocate or pay off people for something spurious? Was it, or was it not an actual issue?
So the astroturfing actual works, proof right there in your post.
So what you're saying is that it's NOT an interesting topic, because you don't want it to be interesting.
Ever worked for hours straight with intense low-frequency sounds washing over you? No? I have. Doesn't matter, I guess, because you're more interested in ad hominem dismissal than you are in any sort of actual, constructive examination of the subject. I'm guessing you're probably also one of the guys that says that videos of flammable water coming out of well taps in some fracking areas is just faked-up astroturfing and not worth directly addressing in conversation, right?
It's not about whether any particular person is legitimately impacted by the thrum-thrum-thrum of giant wings beating the air near their house 24x7. It's about the fact you consider an "interesting" mod to be some sort of troll. Which shows you to be the troll you are.
And your complaint is that a post from someone who works in the wind farm business remarked that the low-frequency throbbing from giant turbines is problematic for people getting their guts and sinus cavities pulsated all day, every day might just be a health issue? You're grousing that that got modded up as interesting?
So, I know people who think the same thing about May-December marriages, or people who marry immigrants, etc. Getting the government out of the business of financially favoring one set of people (the married ones) over another, it all goes away.
Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?