I'm pretty sure that we don't stop with babies now. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. The doctors tell us what we can expect, recovery wise, and hopefully we, not the law, get the right to make decisions for ourselves/loved ones.
Because, there are people we can ask, much better qualified than YOU, called Doctors, and they can tell us when it is unnecessary to torture a mother whose baby has formed non-viably by forcing her to keep the corpse in her belly until "term".
Because sometimes a baby can develop without a brain and still have a beating heart. This baby is, for all acounts, dead. As dead as you would be if I removed the majority of your brain. Here's a better idea, if you are trying to pass a late term abortion ban, then start adding medical exemptions to the bills. Let a Dr with actual training decide what is and is not a living child.
And a fetus doesn't become a fetus until after 8 weeks, btw. But like I say, you either science, or you don't.
And third trimester "abortions" are almost universally because we still call pulling an already dead baby out of it's mother an "abortion". Your hair is a collection of cells, but cutting it isn't murder.
We prefer the "Kill a tiny collection of cells before it becomes a baby" because sometimes it is the responsible decision for parents who don't have the means to bring a child up properly argument. But hey, you either get science or you don't.
So, I took your post and replaced the word Gay with a different protected class to see if it passed the smell test:
They never had any intention of consuming the cake. People have mapped it out, the Black couple drove past something like a dozen other bakeries specifically to target this one because they are such screeching blue haired drama queens that they cannot physically function without calling inordinate amounts attention to themselves. The news made it out to seem like it was a surprise that the bakery wouldn't serve them, but that bakery had a well established reputation by then. The bakery was targeted because of their religious beliefs, it's the very definition of discrimination but because it's cool to be black, the other protected class won this round.
Honestly, I am pretty sure the only way this sounds ok is if you don't believe that gay people are entitled to the same protections black people are. By the way, assuming your description of the situation is accurate, this is the model used during the civil rights movement. Groups of african americans would specifically target businesses knows not to serve people like them and hold sit ins at the lunch counter. I am sure that there are a lot of people who thought they were attention seeking too.,
I was specifically replying to the states brought up by the parent post, not setting an agenda. I specifically called it that i didn't think those were the only factors.
How altruistic. How about we go a step further and add in suicides by guns? I mean if we are serious about stopping deaths, right? Either way, it's pretty easy to tell what kind of impact banning guns has on total murder rates, just look at other countries that took that step. Lemme guess, that's not valid because .
New Hampshire: Gun ownership 14.4%, gun murders per 100,000: 0.4 Illinois: Gun ownership 26.2%, gun murders per 100,000: 2.8 Texas: Gun ownership 35.7%%, gun murders per 100,000: 3.2 (or as I like to call it, Illinois and New Hampshire combined)
I'm not suggesting that gun ownership rates are the only factor, but you seem to be fact deficient, so I decided I would help you out:)
I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one. So, if this is going to be our tepid response, we are probably just suggesting that this is going to happen again, and if the pattern holds, it will happen pretty soon.
I think part of the reason we keep having these is that we seem to be content to assign blame. Everyone chooses their scapegoat, and then nothing actually happens.
It's just so frustrating that people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights.
I'm going to uncharacteristically praise Trump here. Sure, it borders on actual, identifiable retardation, but at least he is trying to suggest something PROACTIVE. Something that in his fevered imaginings might PREVENT this from happening again. You just seem to be content to point the finger and wait for the next shooting. Don't worry, I am sure you will find someone else to nail to the cross then as well.
Also, Chigago's gun laws have been neutered considerably over the last 4 years. City laws are never going to matter when you can drive 20 minutes outside town to get a gun. Any actual restrictions would have to be enacted on the national level to have an effect.
I'm curious what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective? Just a reminder, if you're answer is tort, then you are probably conceding that this has to happen AT LEAST one more time before the deterrent is effective.
There is no reason currently to believe there will EVER be such a think as what you call 'general AI'
When I was a child, the most powerful thing I could get my hands on was an atari 2600. Now, every morning starts with me mumbling "Alexa, what's in the news?". The child version of me had no "reason currently" to believe that would ever be possible.
General AI might not be easy, it may require the type of computing power that seems fanciful now, but will be ubiquitous in 15 years, but it is coming. It won't be a human, it won't be self aware, but it will be able to understand what you mean by "mop the floor, then take out the trash" and it will be physically capable of it. Shortly after that, it will be able to understand "write me a program that calculates the percentage of customers in ohio who are 30 or more days delinquent on their accounts." If anything, that might happen first, because you won't need the robot body.
The point being, the robot/ai won't need to be creative to put you out of work. It just needs to be fast, effective, and cheap (or 2 out of 3 of those).
This is not scifi, this is a logical progression. Just because YOU can't understand how to make it happen, doesn't mean people aren't working on plans this very second to make this a reality. It would be a smart idea for us to come up with a plan on how to deal with it.
I think what they underestimated was the fact that the right will vote for anything that screams guns and abortion. Lets take a quick look at the things that we knew about your fantastic candidate at the time he was elected.
Never served in any form of governmental position. Dodged the draft. No military history. Long history of indictments and out of court settlements over corruption charges. Known public association with mobsters. So many bankruptcies that it was widely known he could not get a line of credit from U.S. banks. Bragged on tv about selling a property to a "very nice" russian oligarch for 60 million profit. By the way, that house was never even seen by the oligarch in question and was later torn down. Bragged about meetings with the "very top" of the russian administration on his trip to russia for the mrs. universe contest. Had a fake university. Gave press conferences surrounded by his friggin steaks. Was caught on tape admitting to attempted affair, and bragged about pussygrabbing.
Can you blame us for assuming that the only reason to elect the least presidential human on earth, who's literal only public agenda was screaming "MAGA" and "Build the Wall!', was basically racist backlash to 8 years of a black president?
Slashdot Mirror
And how many republicans have tried to shrink the military? How many have actively sought to increase it beyond it's already overbloated size?
So sticking our head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist is probably the best course of action.
Please explain how it's different than burning a flag? One's hateful political speech, the other is hateful political speech from bad people.
Ask someone with asthma.
What evidence do you have to suggest this?
Exhibit A: The Mall.
I'm pretty sure that we don't stop with babies now. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. The doctors tell us what we can expect, recovery wise, and hopefully we, not the law, get the right to make decisions for ourselves/loved ones.
Because, there are people we can ask, much better qualified than YOU, called Doctors, and they can tell us when it is unnecessary to torture a mother whose baby has formed non-viably by forcing her to keep the corpse in her belly until "term".
Because sometimes a baby can develop without a brain and still have a beating heart. This baby is, for all acounts, dead. As dead as you would be if I removed the majority of your brain. Here's a better idea, if you are trying to pass a late term abortion ban, then start adding medical exemptions to the bills. Let a Dr with actual training decide what is and is not a living child.
And a fetus doesn't become a fetus until after 8 weeks, btw. But like I say, you either science, or you don't.
And third trimester "abortions" are almost universally because we still call pulling an already dead baby out of it's mother an "abortion". Your hair is a collection of cells, but cutting it isn't murder.
We prefer the "Kill a tiny collection of cells before it becomes a baby" because sometimes it is the responsible decision for parents who don't have the means to bring a child up properly argument. But hey, you either get science or you don't.
Did Nazis suddenly become a protected class in america while I wasn't looking?
So, I took your post and replaced the word Gay with a different protected class to see if it passed the smell test:
They never had any intention of consuming the cake. People have mapped it out, the Black couple drove past something like a dozen other bakeries specifically to target this one because they are such screeching blue haired drama queens that they cannot physically function without calling inordinate amounts attention to themselves. The news made it out to seem like it was a surprise that the bakery wouldn't serve them, but that bakery had a well established reputation by then. The bakery was targeted because of their religious beliefs, it's the very definition of discrimination but because it's cool to be black , the other protected class won this round.
Honestly, I am pretty sure the only way this sounds ok is if you don't believe that gay people are entitled to the same protections black people are. By the way, assuming your description of the situation is accurate, this is the model used during the civil rights movement. Groups of african americans would specifically target businesses knows not to serve people like them and hold sit ins at the lunch counter. I am sure that there are a lot of people who thought they were attention seeking too.,
I was specifically replying to the states brought up by the parent post, not setting an agenda. I specifically called it that i didn't think those were the only factors.
And yet that's not what happened in Australia.
How altruistic. How about we go a step further and add in suicides by guns? I mean if we are serious about stopping deaths, right? Either way, it's pretty easy to tell what kind of impact banning guns has on total murder rates, just look at other countries that took that step. Lemme guess, that's not valid because .
So much less what exactly?
Wikipedia shows:
New Hampshire: Gun ownership 14.4%, gun murders per 100,000: 0.4
Illinois: Gun ownership 26.2%, gun murders per 100,000: 2.8
Texas: Gun ownership 35.7%%, gun murders per 100,000: 3.2 (or as I like to call it, Illinois and New Hampshire combined)
I'm not suggesting that gun ownership rates are the only factor, but you seem to be fact deficient, so I decided I would help you out :)
I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one. So, if this is going to be our tepid response, we are probably just suggesting that this is going to happen again, and if the pattern holds, it will happen pretty soon.
I think part of the reason we keep having these is that we seem to be content to assign blame. Everyone chooses their scapegoat, and then nothing actually happens.
It's just so frustrating that people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights.
It's a lot harder to get alcohol than a gun if you are 18.
I'm going to uncharacteristically praise Trump here. Sure, it borders on actual, identifiable retardation, but at least he is trying to suggest something PROACTIVE. Something that in his fevered imaginings might PREVENT this from happening again. You just seem to be content to point the finger and wait for the next shooting. Don't worry, I am sure you will find someone else to nail to the cross then as well.
Wait, aren't you guys always the ones trying to convince us you need your guns to protect yourselves from the big scary world?
Lol, from your own site...
Also, Chigago's gun laws have been neutered considerably over the last 4 years. City laws are never going to matter when you can drive 20 minutes outside town to get a gun. Any actual restrictions would have to be enacted on the national level to have an effect.
What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
I'm curious what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective? Just a reminder, if you're answer is tort, then you are probably conceding that this has to happen AT LEAST one more time before the deterrent is effective.
There is no reason currently to believe there will EVER be such a think as what you call 'general AI'
When I was a child, the most powerful thing I could get my hands on was an atari 2600. Now, every morning starts with me mumbling "Alexa, what's in the news?". The child version of me had no "reason currently" to believe that would ever be possible.
General AI might not be easy, it may require the type of computing power that seems fanciful now, but will be ubiquitous in 15 years, but it is coming. It won't be a human, it won't be self aware, but it will be able to understand what you mean by "mop the floor, then take out the trash" and it will be physically capable of it. Shortly after that, it will be able to understand "write me a program that calculates the percentage of customers in ohio who are 30 or more days delinquent on their accounts." If anything, that might happen first, because you won't need the robot body.
The point being, the robot/ai won't need to be creative to put you out of work. It just needs to be fast, effective, and cheap (or 2 out of 3 of those).
This is not scifi, this is a logical progression. Just because YOU can't understand how to make it happen, doesn't mean people aren't working on plans this very second to make this a reality. It would be a smart idea for us to come up with a plan on how to deal with it.
I think what they underestimated was the fact that the right will vote for anything that screams guns and abortion. Lets take a quick look at the things that we knew about your fantastic candidate at the time he was elected.
Never served in any form of governmental position.
Dodged the draft. No military history.
Long history of indictments and out of court settlements over corruption charges.
Known public association with mobsters.
So many bankruptcies that it was widely known he could not get a line of credit from U.S. banks.
Bragged on tv about selling a property to a "very nice" russian oligarch for 60 million profit. By the way, that house was never even seen by the oligarch in question and was later torn down.
Bragged about meetings with the "very top" of the russian administration on his trip to russia for the mrs. universe contest.
Had a fake university.
Gave press conferences surrounded by his friggin steaks.
Was caught on tape admitting to attempted affair, and bragged about pussygrabbing.
Can you blame us for assuming that the only reason to elect the least presidential human on earth, who's literal only public agenda was screaming "MAGA" and "Build the Wall!', was basically racist backlash to 8 years of a black president?