Oh? So you're saying that there is a context in which suggesting that throwing acid into women's faces is actually a good idea, is not outrageous and not grounds to immediately label the person saying such a thing as irredeemable asshole?
Vox Day has pretty much openly stated that his slate is a nuclear response to the imaginary "left wing conspiracy" that doesn't award the authors that he likes. As I recall, he pretty specifically said that he intends to burn Hugo down to the ground and make sure that it's meaningless, if it doesn't conform to his wishes. Terrorism is actually an apt analogy: utilizing fear and threats to force your target to commit to some political issue. Obviously, Vox is not terrorist (well, not on that count; based on his other writings, he may well be a closeted one who hasn't decided to take up arms yet). But the logic of "you do not deal with terrorists" is fully applicable here. Do it once, and you'll be doing it for the rest of your life, because the threats will never stop.
OP is talking about the nomination votes, not the award votes.
The award votes were a backlash from the fandom after the nomination votes got stacked so badly. It is groupthink, in a sense that any ostracism is a kind of "groupthink". It doesn't mean that it isn't warranted or legitimate.
ASK ANY experienced police officer and they will tell you that over 60 percent of guns that wind up on the street are stolen from property crimes and that most bad guy incidents like home invasions and burglaries are not helped by the home owner or any resident using a firearm to either scare off or defend their life and property.
I have to ask - have YOU tried to ask an experienced police officer about these things? Because I've asked quite a few, and they were all very much in favor of the notion of citizens being armed, and proficient in the use of these arms, to defend themselves in precisely these kinds of situations.
Explain the fact that these allegedly intelligent gun owners, even owner who have used guns for years, do stupid things like mixing firearms with alcohol, firing guns in populated areas, accidentally kill their friends, etc.
There are almost 400 million guns in USA, and something on the order of 100 million households with them.
When you're talking about scales as large as this, you'll have all parts of the bell curve represented quite nicely. And, of course, it's the ones that do spectacularly stupid things, like microwaving a loaded Glock, that will make the front page.
Why are you repeatedly conflating gun violence with violence in general? USA is very much distinguishable from a Third World nation in terms of overall violent crime rates, and is closer to other First World nations in that regard (albeit an outlier in that group).
A lot of people with relatively low skills can no longer find honest work
This is only a problem in a society that requires people to work to earn their living. And as far as I'm concerned, it's such an arrangement that is the problem itself, not automation.
The work that was replaced was relatively healthy work, out in the open air, requiring exercise. That kind of work has been replaced by an obesity epidemic and addictions to drugs, television, video games, and so forth.
And yet we live longer and are healthier, on average, than at any past time in human history. Have you considered that perhaps the wonders of "healthy work out in open air" have been rather overrated? It wouldn't be the first time, after all.
Many small farmers can not afford to pay for human labor, and can not afford to buy the machines.
This is, again, the problem with the socioeconomic arrangement, and a subset of a larger question of why some people can afford fleets of private jets and gold-plated urinals, while others can barely feed their family while working two grueling full-time jobs.
Many cultivars (varieties) of plant are not suitable for machine picking, which means the diversity of crops we grow has gone down.
Narrow engineering problem; solvable in long term.
Machine picking is not as effective as human picking, in terms of getting all the crop off the plants.
Narrow engineering problem; solvable in long term.
Machines have lots of hidden costs to society, in terms of using irreplaceable fossil fuels, in terms of the resources needed to mine and refine the metals to produce them, to maintain them, and to dispose of them when they finally cease to be cost effective.
Machines need energy to run, and there's plenty of energy to harvest from renewable and other green sources if we care about it. Metals are the least of the problem because they are extremely easy to recycle, so you needn't either mine them or dispose of them.
A lot of people get seriously injured, even crippled, by accidents involving the machines.
A lot of people get injured and crippled in any industry that involves hard physical labor - machines don't really change that, it's the nature of the job. If anything, it's an argument to push even further for complete automation such that only machines themselves are in danger.
The Jeffersonian ideal of the small independent farmer as the backbone of a free society has been effectively destroyed.
The Jeffersonian ideal was dead even before it was proposed. It was destroyed not by the concerted effort of society, but by the fact that society organized along these lines will be weak and backwards, and a ripe target for military and/or economic conquest by other societies that mechanize, automate and centralize.
For reference, this (if I remember correctly) is the base level standard set by Project Appleseed.
However, if we are going there, I would suggest that we start with the police, seeing how they are actually the ones who regularly unload in an environment full of people.
As soon as I make over $1,766,000 per year (the inflation adjusted 90% bracket floor in 1946), yes, I will gladly pay 90% of anything over that.
Not to forget that we're talking about personal income here - wages and such. If you're making more than $1.7 million, you're almost certainly getting most of it from capital gains instead, and those were taxed at what, flat 25% then; and 20% at most now?
I want Clinton to win because I support the things she does
You support her vote for Iraq invasion? Or the one for Patriot Act?
If you want the more recent stuff, how about her saying that Glass-Steagall is not worth reinstating? Or her support for the "free trade" treaties that radically expand the forced monopoly that is intellectual property?
I'm also curious, did you support her before when she was adamantly against gay marriage, or do you support her now when she's not only adamantly for it, but refuses to admit that she was wrong before.
The idea that you cannot take a photo of your dinner plate and post it on your Facebook is idiotic.
If that's really what the law says, it should be amended ASAP.
What next, you can't take a picture of yourself after a haircut because that would violate the stylist's copyright on the artistic arrangement of your hair?
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute.
The standard British firearm of that era was Brown Bess, with an average rate of fire for a drilled soldier being 3-4 shots per minute.
But, of course, there were all kinds of other things. For example, a bow, capable of 10 shots per minute in the hands of a trained bowman - certainly long obsolete by then, but not unknown. Or, say, repeating crossbows, which were capable of emptying a 10-bolt magazine in under 20 seconds - actually faster than most bolt-action rifles. And then there were things on the technological bleeding edge of the era, such as Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 20 shots almost as fast as you could pull the trigger (and yes, it launched the projectiles fast enough to actually kill people out to ~100m - it was designed as a military weapon, after all).
And, of course, it's not like people in that era were unable to comprehend that arms will develop further to become more lethal over time. After all, they (well, the literate ones - but they were also the ones who wrote all those things) knew full well about the history of military arms to that point, and the rapid and accelerating pace at which it evolved after the invention of gunpowder.
Taking literally, it's saying that government should regulate militias heavily. Given what they turned into today, it doesn't sound like a bad idea.
I don't see where it says anything about regulating guns. Nor do I see anything there saying that only militia, regulated or otherwise, has the right to own guns. It says "the right of the people"; it doesn't say "the right of militia", or "the right of people in militia". Everywhere else it says "the people" without qualification, it means everyone under US jurisdiction. I don't see why this particular use should be interpreted differently.
You may not like this - that is fine. A hundred years ago, many people didn't like alcohol and thought that it was very harmful to society, so they decided to ban it. To do so, they organized, and successfully promoted a constitutional amendment that gave the federal government the power to ban alcohol, and to enforce such a ban. You're welcome to do the same. In fact, if you were to promote an amendment that would allow reasonable regulation (e.g. background checks, safety standards) while also clearly blocking more extensive gun control with no rational purpose (e.g. AWB, magazine capacity limits) or that is too oppressive (e.g. requirement to demonstrate a "legitimate reason" to own a firearm), I would support such an initiative. But there's a proper process to follow.
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun
Unless you're a time-travelling telepath, you'd need to give some references for that claim. Can you, for example, show where this point was raised in the recorded discussions around the Second Amendment, of which there were plenty?
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right?
You should decide if you're arguing from an utilitarian standpoint, or from a constitutionalist one. The utilitarian outcome matters not one bit if the matter at stake is whether something is unconstitutional or not. If it's unconstitutional, but it really needs to be done, then the proper approach within the constitutionalist framework is to amend the constitution.
the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
You keep claiming that FFs saw it as a problem on the basis of one particular interpretation of the amendment itself - an interpretation that is very heavily contested, and people who do so have ample literary evidence on their side.
So tell me this. If you believe that they saw the problem, then why haven't they enacted the laws to solve it? You claim that 2A is written in such a way as to give them the ability to legislate on the matter; fine, so why didn't they legislate? or if they did, then what are the corresponding laws? Can you point just one, from the time period where those people still participated in the government on any level, that required a validation of proficiency, or denied anyone RKBA if they were to be proved non-proficient?
Why would the court be concerned that you have a weapon? It's perfectly legal to have a weapon for self-defense purposes in this country - it's not UK.
Yes, I remember them. And I know that you can't find them anymore. There have been efforts - successful efforts - to eradicate them from the internet, along with plans to build 3d-printed guns and other "questionable" things.
As to being a Chinese protectorate. Good luck with that. China is very insular and pragmatic. They will not extend their protection over Russia unless they control Russia. And even then... it is not in their interest to control all of it. They would perhaps want part of Siberia.
Don't Russia still has permanent membership in UNSC. If China can effectively "buy" their vote, that alone is a very worthwhile investment. And I think China has arrived at the point where "control" for them doesn't necessarily translate to direct political control, so long as they wield the economic power that lets them push through things that they want - just look at what they're doing in Africa. So the way they could effectively control Russia is not direct political intervention, but by e.g. being the only reliable customer for Russian gas and oil, and other products (esp. as Western sanctions expand further). Given that Russian economy is still mostly based on export of natural resources, and there's no sign of that changing anytime soon, it would make Russia utterly dependent on China in all practical ways, all while China itself profits from cheap resources. For Chinese, it's a win-win all around.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh? So you're saying that there is a context in which suggesting that throwing acid into women's faces is actually a good idea, is not outrageous and not grounds to immediately label the person saying such a thing as irredeemable asshole?
Vox Day has pretty much openly stated that his slate is a nuclear response to the imaginary "left wing conspiracy" that doesn't award the authors that he likes. As I recall, he pretty specifically said that he intends to burn Hugo down to the ground and make sure that it's meaningless, if it doesn't conform to his wishes. Terrorism is actually an apt analogy: utilizing fear and threats to force your target to commit to some political issue. Obviously, Vox is not terrorist (well, not on that count; based on his other writings, he may well be a closeted one who hasn't decided to take up arms yet). But the logic of "you do not deal with terrorists" is fully applicable here. Do it once, and you'll be doing it for the rest of your life, because the threats will never stop.
OP is talking about the nomination votes, not the award votes.
The award votes were a backlash from the fandom after the nomination votes got stacked so badly. It is groupthink, in a sense that any ostracism is a kind of "groupthink". It doesn't mean that it isn't warranted or legitimate.
cliquish groupthink
Excuse me, but what do you think the Puppies are?
I think the last assertion needs more citations.
Here you go:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/T...
You do not deal with terrorists.
ASK ANY experienced police officer and they will tell you that over 60 percent of guns that wind up on the street are stolen from property crimes and that most bad guy incidents like home invasions and burglaries are not helped by the home owner or any resident using a firearm to either scare off or defend their life and property.
I have to ask - have YOU tried to ask an experienced police officer about these things? Because I've asked quite a few, and they were all very much in favor of the notion of citizens being armed, and proficient in the use of these arms, to defend themselves in precisely these kinds of situations.
Explain the fact that these allegedly intelligent gun owners, even owner who have used guns for years, do stupid things like mixing firearms with alcohol, firing guns in populated areas, accidentally kill their friends, etc.
There are almost 400 million guns in USA, and something on the order of 100 million households with them.
When you're talking about scales as large as this, you'll have all parts of the bell curve represented quite nicely. And, of course, it's the ones that do spectacularly stupid things, like microwaving a loaded Glock, that will make the front page.
Why are you repeatedly conflating gun violence with violence in general? USA is very much distinguishable from a Third World nation in terms of overall violent crime rates, and is closer to other First World nations in that regard (albeit an outlier in that group).
The notion of "mass media" in the day and age of social networks is so quaint.
A lot of people with relatively low skills can no longer find honest work
This is only a problem in a society that requires people to work to earn their living. And as far as I'm concerned, it's such an arrangement that is the problem itself, not automation.
The work that was replaced was relatively healthy work, out in the open air, requiring exercise. That kind of work has been replaced by an obesity epidemic and addictions to drugs, television, video games, and so forth.
And yet we live longer and are healthier, on average, than at any past time in human history. Have you considered that perhaps the wonders of "healthy work out in open air" have been rather overrated? It wouldn't be the first time, after all.
Many small farmers can not afford to pay for human labor, and can not afford to buy the machines.
This is, again, the problem with the socioeconomic arrangement, and a subset of a larger question of why some people can afford fleets of private jets and gold-plated urinals, while others can barely feed their family while working two grueling full-time jobs.
Many cultivars (varieties) of plant are not suitable for machine picking, which means the diversity of crops we grow has gone down.
Narrow engineering problem; solvable in long term.
Machine picking is not as effective as human picking, in terms of getting all the crop off the plants.
Narrow engineering problem; solvable in long term.
Machines have lots of hidden costs to society, in terms of using irreplaceable fossil fuels, in terms of the resources needed to mine and refine the metals to produce them, to maintain them, and to dispose of them when they finally cease to be cost effective.
Machines need energy to run, and there's plenty of energy to harvest from renewable and other green sources if we care about it. Metals are the least of the problem because they are extremely easy to recycle, so you needn't either mine them or dispose of them.
A lot of people get seriously injured, even crippled, by accidents involving the machines.
A lot of people get injured and crippled in any industry that involves hard physical labor - machines don't really change that, it's the nature of the job. If anything, it's an argument to push even further for complete automation such that only machines themselves are in danger.
The Jeffersonian ideal of the small independent farmer as the backbone of a free society has been effectively destroyed.
The Jeffersonian ideal was dead even before it was proposed. It was destroyed not by the concerted effort of society, but by the fact that society organized along these lines will be weak and backwards, and a ripe target for military and/or economic conquest by other societies that mechanize, automate and centralize.
Of course the law shouldn't make an exception for Facebook. It should make an exception for fair use, which FB should obviously qualify for.
For reference, this (if I remember correctly) is the base level standard set by Project Appleseed.
However, if we are going there, I would suggest that we start with the police, seeing how they are actually the ones who regularly unload in an environment full of people.
As soon as I make over $1,766,000 per year (the inflation adjusted 90% bracket floor in 1946), yes, I will gladly pay 90% of anything over that.
Not to forget that we're talking about personal income here - wages and such. If you're making more than $1.7 million, you're almost certainly getting most of it from capital gains instead, and those were taxed at what, flat 25% then; and 20% at most now?
Why can't you imagine it being feasible for major elections? That's exactly how elections work in several countries, up to and including presidential.
Oh, and speaking of what's legal and not legal. Here, take a look:
http://www.armslist.com/posts/...
I want Clinton to win because I support the things she does
You support her vote for Iraq invasion? Or the one for Patriot Act?
If you want the more recent stuff, how about her saying that Glass-Steagall is not worth reinstating? Or her support for the "free trade" treaties that radically expand the forced monopoly that is intellectual property?
I'm also curious, did you support her before when she was adamantly against gay marriage, or do you support her now when she's not only adamantly for it, but refuses to admit that she was wrong before.
The idea that you cannot take a photo of your dinner plate and post it on your Facebook is idiotic.
If that's really what the law says, it should be amended ASAP.
What next, you can't take a picture of yourself after a haircut because that would violate the stylist's copyright on the artistic arrangement of your hair?
In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute.
The standard British firearm of that era was Brown Bess, with an average rate of fire for a drilled soldier being 3-4 shots per minute.
But, of course, there were all kinds of other things. For example, a bow, capable of 10 shots per minute in the hands of a trained bowman - certainly long obsolete by then, but not unknown. Or, say, repeating crossbows, which were capable of emptying a 10-bolt magazine in under 20 seconds - actually faster than most bolt-action rifles. And then there were things on the technological bleeding edge of the era, such as Girandoni air rifle, capable of firing 20 shots almost as fast as you could pull the trigger (and yes, it launched the projectiles fast enough to actually kill people out to ~100m - it was designed as a military weapon, after all).
And, of course, it's not like people in that era were unable to comprehend that arms will develop further to become more lethal over time. After all, they (well, the literate ones - but they were also the ones who wrote all those things) knew full well about the history of military arms to that point, and the rapid and accelerating pace at which it evolved after the invention of gunpowder.
Taking literally, it's saying that government should regulate militias heavily. Given what they turned into today, it doesn't sound like a bad idea.
I don't see where it says anything about regulating guns. Nor do I see anything there saying that only militia, regulated or otherwise, has the right to own guns. It says "the right of the people"; it doesn't say "the right of militia", or "the right of people in militia". Everywhere else it says "the people" without qualification, it means everyone under US jurisdiction. I don't see why this particular use should be interpreted differently.
You may not like this - that is fine. A hundred years ago, many people didn't like alcohol and thought that it was very harmful to society, so they decided to ban it. To do so, they organized, and successfully promoted a constitutional amendment that gave the federal government the power to ban alcohol, and to enforce such a ban. You're welcome to do the same. In fact, if you were to promote an amendment that would allow reasonable regulation (e.g. background checks, safety standards) while also clearly blocking more extensive gun control with no rational purpose (e.g. AWB, magazine capacity limits) or that is too oppressive (e.g. requirement to demonstrate a "legitimate reason" to own a firearm), I would support such an initiative. But there's a proper process to follow.
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun
Unless you're a time-travelling telepath, you'd need to give some references for that claim. Can you, for example, show where this point was raised in the recorded discussions around the Second Amendment, of which there were plenty?
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right?
You should decide if you're arguing from an utilitarian standpoint, or from a constitutionalist one. The utilitarian outcome matters not one bit if the matter at stake is whether something is unconstitutional or not. If it's unconstitutional, but it really needs to be done, then the proper approach within the constitutionalist framework is to amend the constitution.
the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
You keep claiming that FFs saw it as a problem on the basis of one particular interpretation of the amendment itself - an interpretation that is very heavily contested, and people who do so have ample literary evidence on their side.
So tell me this. If you believe that they saw the problem, then why haven't they enacted the laws to solve it? You claim that 2A is written in such a way as to give them the ability to legislate on the matter; fine, so why didn't they legislate? or if they did, then what are the corresponding laws? Can you point just one, from the time period where those people still participated in the government on any level, that required a validation of proficiency, or denied anyone RKBA if they were to be proved non-proficient?
Would "be able to hit a man-sized target out to 300 yards with a rifle" be deemed sufficient by you?
Why would the court be concerned that you have a weapon? It's perfectly legal to have a weapon for self-defense purposes in this country - it's not UK.
Yes, I remember them. And I know that you can't find them anymore. There have been efforts - successful efforts - to eradicate them from the internet, along with plans to build 3d-printed guns and other "questionable" things.
https://thepiratebay.gd/search...
https://thepiratebay.gd/search...
You were saying?
As to being a Chinese protectorate. Good luck with that. China is very insular and pragmatic. They will not extend their protection over Russia unless they control Russia. And even then... it is not in their interest to control all of it. They would perhaps want part of Siberia.
Don't Russia still has permanent membership in UNSC. If China can effectively "buy" their vote, that alone is a very worthwhile investment. And I think China has arrived at the point where "control" for them doesn't necessarily translate to direct political control, so long as they wield the economic power that lets them push through things that they want - just look at what they're doing in Africa. So the way they could effectively control Russia is not direct political intervention, but by e.g. being the only reliable customer for Russian gas and oil, and other products (esp. as Western sanctions expand further). Given that Russian economy is still mostly based on export of natural resources, and there's no sign of that changing anytime soon, it would make Russia utterly dependent on China in all practical ways, all while China itself profits from cheap resources. For Chinese, it's a win-win all around.