The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance
should not matter if the feminist narrative that both genders are biologically, mentally, and psychologically equal. If it matters, then there's something different about how men and women are wired and that needs to be acknowledged and accounted for by society at large.
I'm not advocating for either position, here; merely pointing out that the two cannot coexist.
Oh what ever will the anti-gun crowd do now that they can no longer (falsely, but they could fall back on letting people think they're just idiots with poor reading comprehension) claim the CDC can't research gun violence?
So then her having a gun would have resulted in one less death? Fancy that. Too bad all the anti-gun crowd will say is if he didn't have a gun there would be one less dead because he couldn't have shot himself -- thus we should ban guns.
Sick. Just plain sick.
If there were one more gun in that situation there would have been at least one less death, possibly no deaths at all. That's what the anti-gun crowd is missing, here.
The common response to that is to call anywhere with a higher per-capita gun violence rate than the US a "third-world shithole" and handwave it away because that sort of thing just happens in third-world shitholes. Of course, you and I know that the existence of regions of the world with fewer guns per-capita, yet more gun violence per-capita indicates that there is some factor other than the guns themselves which is contributing to the violence and that the guns only serve to categorize that violence as "gun violence".
Don't bother trying to explain that to a snowflake, though.
Hey, well, I mean... technically... that wasn't a gun death, so the anti-gunners were right?
Adjusting perspective, perhaps it was a gun death because, if she'd had her gun, she wouldn't have died. Maybe he would have, and that would have been a gun death; but maybe the gun would have deterred him without shots fired.
From the first paragraph of your own link, the Dickey Amendment states
none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control
That is, it can use those funds, or any of its other funding to study gun violence and it can use any of its funding other than the injury prevention funding to promote gun control, which is something I actually disagree with because they are not an advocacy group and shouldn't be promoting anything.
The CDC is allowed to (and does) study gun violence and, in fact, the CDC released this study on gun violence (PDF warning) in 2015.
I'll hear people make claims about "gun deaths" correlating to gun ownership. I don't care if the person got murdered with a gun, a knife, or by being tossed out a window. If we want to see murder go down then it can't be done with gun laws. We might see "gun deaths" go down but that's like saying "pool drownings" go down by banning pools while total drownings stay the same because now people go swim in a lake instead.
The common response I get when I make similar points is akin to "no, it'll still drop because it's harder to get to the lake than it is to get to the pool in your own back yard." Buckle up, the idiots are coming to rain on your parade.
I see you stopped reading before "Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average."
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
What makes you think this? Most gun owners I know own their firearms for sporting purposes; are you saying there's something wrong with sporting activities?
You do realize there is an anti-gun crowd out there, right? I'm part of the sensible gun control crowd and certainly not anti-gun, so I wasn't galling that group the anti-gun crowd. Can we agree that the anti-gun crowd are just as unreasonable as the NRA and the "everyone should be allowed to have a gun no matter what" collective?
A right is not 'granted', but is inherent to the person.
While this is correct...
You're thinking of privilege.
... this is not.
We quite often (and quite necessarily) restrict or remove certain rights from a person when they show they can't handle the responsibilities that come with those rights. Let's traverse the Bill of Rights, just for kicks:
We don't have the privilege of free speech, we have the right of free speech; but certain speech is restricted, such as misleading or dishonest advertising.
We don't have the privilege to bear arms, we have the right to bear arms, but ownership of firearms is restricted if you are committed for mental health issues, convicted of a felony (or misdemeanor domestic violence), if someone has a restraining order against you, or any number of other reasons.
We don't have the privilege of not having our homes invaded by military personnel, we have the right to not have our homes invaded by military personnel; the 3rd Amendment does stipulate that laws may allow for this, none the less.
We don't have the privilege of being secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, we have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; yet you can easily lose your house, papers, and effects if they are obtained through illegal means, and you lose your right to be secure in your person when convicted of certain crimes. We call the former "seizure" and the latter "imprisonment".
The 5th through 10th Amendments don't have any real legal loopholes, they just get ignored a lot for no legitimate purpose. I think we're on the same page regarding these. The restriction and removal of the rights enumerated in the first four Amendments, however, do serve a greater public good: to protect the rights and lives of regular, law abiding, citizens.
I'll concede, though, that I should not have used the word "granted" on that context. Please allow me to revise my comment:
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you can't (safely) handle a gun, you should have your right to do so restricted or removed; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights. However, I should not lose my rights if you shirk your responsibilities.
I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil.
Lack of soil nutrients does prevent growth (with the exception stated in my prior post); what does that have to do with whether i'm for or against modifying plants to grow in deficient soil? Also, please note the material difference between deficient and depleted. In your first comment, you say "all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year", which described depleted soil; deficient soil would have a low nutrient content, but wouldn't lack nutrients altogether. It seems you're the one who'se changed their argument, here.
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you learn how to (safely) handle a gun, you should be granted the right to do so; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights. However, I should not lose my rights if you shirk your responsibilities.
The question you should really be asking in this context is "Should you have gun rights if I don't know how to use a gun?"
Yet you have no answer. Want to try that again, pot, instead of calling the kettle black?
Of course you don't, because you have no answer. I'm sure you gave it some thought and couldn't come up with anything that didn't destroy your argument, so you're falling back on personal attacks.
That's what people usually do when they're wrong. Don't worry, I'm used to it, I see it a lot. Especially on Slashdot.
Industry isn't the issue (though I'd like to know which industry you're referring to); people themselves take up space (land surface area), generate heat (temperature), and produce waste and emissions.
So I learned something this morning, thank you. What of the rest of my post? You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.
So I did a very cursory search of vitamin compositions and gleaned from that the components of the group of substances we call vitamins, but perhaps did not look far enough; some random on the internet corrected me and (more importantly) I verified that correction before committing it to my knowledge base. Were I to "just stop talking" every time someone demanded I do so, I would likely learn a lot less. That said, you could stand to learn a few things, yourself; namely, how to debate a complicated topic without concentrating on a single point; complicated topics have many points and, often, being wrong about a single one is enough to render your entire argument invalid.
As in this case, where you're point about not all nutrients coming from the soil is wrong. Not because it's technically incorrect but because it ignores the fact that, without soil nutrients, plants die off. When those soil nutrients are depleted, growth stops, no matter how much carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, you "feed" a plant; it doesn't just "magic" those into vitamin A and C -- and even if it did, it doesn't grow and thrive solely on those. If plants could grow and thrive on vitamin A and C alone, I would concede this argument right here and now, but they can't.
You keep downplaying the importance of soil nutrients and that's where you've gone astray. Consider hydroponics for a moment; no soil, but the process does require the addition of nutrients to the water. The same nutrients the plant, if planted in the ground, could only get from the soil it was planted in; that's why they're called soil nutrients.
Mind you, there are a handful of plant species with such low nutrient requirements that they can grow just about anywhere there's humidity available for them to suck from the air. These, of course, carry almost no nutritional value for humans, on top of the fact that they tend to grow very slowly and don't get very large. Soil nutrients don't really help this specific set of species, either; in fact, they tend to die if you attempt to "feed" them. But for food crops? Yes, soil nutrients are required.
Deplete the soil, as you mentioned earlier, and you can't grow the crops; and now you downplay the importance of that soil thinking I won't catch your trick? Buddy, I can maneuver around that technique in my sleep.
You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.
What? Where? When?
Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination)
How many vitamins are comprised solely of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen? None. All four of these are present in nearly every vitamin, but every other component of the minerals found in a plant's nutrient load comes from the soil. Furthermore, a plant's nutrient load also includes mineral elements derived entirely from the soil... or have we discovered a way to extract calcium and sodium chloride (to give two examples) from thin air? Here's a hint: we haven't, and we won't because the required elements aren't found in high enough concentrations in the air.
"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"
"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"
Two completely different points were being made; one regarding a common genetic modification made to food crops distributed to poorer regions of the world and another pertaining to soil management. In the first point, fertilizers available in richer parts of the world are irrelevant as they're not available in the poorer regions; that restriction doesn't really apply to the second point. There's nothing dishonest about making multiple points in a complex discussion.
But you just said this doesn't apply because you're not counting things like fertilizer.
I actually didn't, go back and read again. I did say that, in some cases, it's a non-option, but that doesn't mean they don't count for anything.
No shit? And what stops them from doing that while growing more efficient crops?
What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield? The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant. While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.
No, it's not that; I just thought I was dealing with an honest person. My bad.
Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?
Different plants need different nutrients, fertilizers often get applied, animals shit, rain brings additional nutrients (it's not pure water), dead plants from last years crop decompose, but most often farmers will rotate crops so they aren't growing the same crop on the same land multiple years in a row.
The first physical limit I see to population is power consumption: while given sufficient technology you can build orbiting solar arrays or fusion plants to enable arbitrarily high power consumption on Earth, the waste heat still gets dumped here.
Seems you answered your own question. There's that critical thinking I was talking about!
But that's vastly beyond the ~10B people the population is projected to crest at.
And why is the population projected to crest at that point? I could give you the fish, but it'll be better for you if you learn to fish for yourself.
You clearly have zero interest in giving this any amount of critical thought. That's fine, you go off and live in your world and the rest of us will stay here, in this one, where reality dictates that technology can't speed up every process.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance
should not matter if the feminist narrative that both genders are biologically, mentally, and psychologically equal. If it matters, then there's something different about how men and women are wired and that needs to be acknowledged and accounted for by society at large.
I'm not advocating for either position, here; merely pointing out that the two cannot coexist.
Oh what ever will the anti-gun crowd do now that they can no longer (falsely, but they could fall back on letting people think they're just idiots with poor reading comprehension) claim the CDC can't research gun violence?
PHP hasn't stood for that in years.
So then her having a gun would have resulted in one less death? Fancy that. Too bad all the anti-gun crowd will say is if he didn't have a gun there would be one less dead because he couldn't have shot himself -- thus we should ban guns.
Sick. Just plain sick.
If there were one more gun in that situation there would have been at least one less death, possibly no deaths at all. That's what the anti-gun crowd is missing, here.
The common response to that is to call anywhere with a higher per-capita gun violence rate than the US a "third-world shithole" and handwave it away because that sort of thing just happens in third-world shitholes. Of course, you and I know that the existence of regions of the world with fewer guns per-capita, yet more gun violence per-capita indicates that there is some factor other than the guns themselves which is contributing to the violence and that the guns only serve to categorize that violence as "gun violence".
Don't bother trying to explain that to a snowflake, though.
Hey, well, I mean... technically... that wasn't a gun death, so the anti-gunners were right?
Adjusting perspective, perhaps it was a gun death because, if she'd had her gun, she wouldn't have died. Maybe he would have, and that would have been a gun death; but maybe the gun would have deterred him without shots fired.
none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control
That is, it can use those funds, or any of its other funding to study gun violence and it can use any of its funding other than the injury prevention funding to promote gun control, which is something I actually disagree with because they are not an advocacy group and shouldn't be promoting anything.
The CDC is allowed to (and does) study gun violence and, in fact, the CDC released this study on gun violence (PDF warning) in 2015.
I'll hear people make claims about "gun deaths" correlating to gun ownership. I don't care if the person got murdered with a gun, a knife, or by being tossed out a window. If we want to see murder go down then it can't be done with gun laws. We might see "gun deaths" go down but that's like saying "pool drownings" go down by banning pools while total drownings stay the same because now people go swim in a lake instead.
The common response I get when I make similar points is akin to "no, it'll still drop because it's harder to get to the lake than it is to get to the pool in your own back yard." Buckle up, the idiots are coming to rain on your parade.
As long as companies don't ban guns on their property, this will continue to happen.
I see you stopped reading before "Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average."
I'm betting she'll be treated with gloves by the coroner. She's dead.
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
What makes you think this? Most gun owners I know own their firearms for sporting purposes; are you saying there's something wrong with sporting activities?
You do realize there is an anti-gun crowd out there, right? I'm part of the sensible gun control crowd and certainly not anti-gun, so I wasn't galling that group the anti-gun crowd. Can we agree that the anti-gun crowd are just as unreasonable as the NRA and the "everyone should be allowed to have a gun no matter what" collective?
Maybe if the anti-gun crowd wanted to be reasonable, that's how gun rights would work.
A right is not 'granted', but is inherent to the person.
While this is correct...
You're thinking of privilege.
... this is not.
We quite often (and quite necessarily) restrict or remove certain rights from a person when they show they can't handle the responsibilities that come with those rights. Let's traverse the Bill of Rights, just for kicks:
We don't have the privilege of free speech, we have the right of free speech; but certain speech is restricted, such as misleading or dishonest advertising.
We don't have the privilege to bear arms, we have the right to bear arms, but ownership of firearms is restricted if you are committed for mental health issues, convicted of a felony (or misdemeanor domestic violence), if someone has a restraining order against you, or any number of other reasons.
We don't have the privilege of not having our homes invaded by military personnel, we have the right to not have our homes invaded by military personnel; the 3rd Amendment does stipulate that laws may allow for this, none the less.
We don't have the privilege of being secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, we have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; yet you can easily lose your house, papers, and effects if they are obtained through illegal means, and you lose your right to be secure in your person when convicted of certain crimes. We call the former "seizure" and the latter "imprisonment".
The 5th through 10th Amendments don't have any real legal loopholes, they just get ignored a lot for no legitimate purpose. I think we're on the same page regarding these. The restriction and removal of the rights enumerated in the first four Amendments, however, do serve a greater public good: to protect the rights and lives of regular, law abiding, citizens.
I'll concede, though, that I should not have used the word "granted" on that context. Please allow me to revise my comment:
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you can't (safely) handle a gun, you should have your right to do so restricted or removed; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights. However, I should not lose my rights if you shirk your responsibilities.
I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil.
Lack of soil nutrients does prevent growth (with the exception stated in my prior post); what does that have to do with whether i'm for or against modifying plants to grow in deficient soil? Also, please note the material difference between deficient and depleted. In your first comment, you say "all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year", which described depleted soil; deficient soil would have a low nutrient content, but wouldn't lack nutrients altogether. It seems you're the one who'se changed their argument, here.
This just further reinforces my conclusion.
No, you're just confused.
You've wandered away from your original claim
Not in the slightest.
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you learn how to (safely) handle a gun, you should be granted the right to do so; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights. However, I should not lose my rights if you shirk your responsibilities.
The question you should really be asking in this context is "Should you have gun rights if I don't know how to use a gun?"
Yet you have no answer. Want to try that again, pot, instead of calling the kettle black?
Of course you don't, because you have no answer. I'm sure you gave it some thought and couldn't come up with anything that didn't destroy your argument, so you're falling back on personal attacks.
That's what people usually do when they're wrong. Don't worry, I'm used to it, I see it a lot. Especially on Slashdot.
Industry isn't the issue (though I'd like to know which industry you're referring to); people themselves take up space (land surface area), generate heat (temperature), and produce waste and emissions.
So I learned something this morning, thank you. What of the rest of my post? You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.
So I did a very cursory search of vitamin compositions and gleaned from that the components of the group of substances we call vitamins, but perhaps did not look far enough; some random on the internet corrected me and (more importantly) I verified that correction before committing it to my knowledge base. Were I to "just stop talking" every time someone demanded I do so, I would likely learn a lot less. That said, you could stand to learn a few things, yourself; namely, how to debate a complicated topic without concentrating on a single point; complicated topics have many points and, often, being wrong about a single one is enough to render your entire argument invalid.
As in this case, where you're point about not all nutrients coming from the soil is wrong. Not because it's technically incorrect but because it ignores the fact that, without soil nutrients, plants die off. When those soil nutrients are depleted, growth stops, no matter how much carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, you "feed" a plant; it doesn't just "magic" those into vitamin A and C -- and even if it did, it doesn't grow and thrive solely on those. If plants could grow and thrive on vitamin A and C alone, I would concede this argument right here and now, but they can't.
You keep downplaying the importance of soil nutrients and that's where you've gone astray. Consider hydroponics for a moment; no soil, but the process does require the addition of nutrients to the water. The same nutrients the plant, if planted in the ground, could only get from the soil it was planted in; that's why they're called soil nutrients.
Mind you, there are a handful of plant species with such low nutrient requirements that they can grow just about anywhere there's humidity available for them to suck from the air. These, of course, carry almost no nutritional value for humans, on top of the fact that they tend to grow very slowly and don't get very large. Soil nutrients don't really help this specific set of species, either; in fact, they tend to die if you attempt to "feed" them. But for food crops? Yes, soil nutrients are required.
Deplete the soil, as you mentioned earlier, and you can't grow the crops; and now you downplay the importance of that soil thinking I won't catch your trick? Buddy, I can maneuver around that technique in my sleep.
You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.
What? Where? When?
Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination)
How many vitamins are comprised solely of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen? None. All four of these are present in nearly every vitamin, but every other component of the minerals found in a plant's nutrient load comes from the soil. Furthermore, a plant's nutrient load also includes mineral elements derived entirely from the soil... or have we discovered a way to extract calcium and sodium chloride (to give two examples) from thin air? Here's a hint: we haven't, and we won't because the required elements aren't found in high enough concentrations in the air.
"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"
"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"
Two completely different points were being made; one regarding a common genetic modification made to food crops distributed to poorer regions of the world and another pertaining to soil management. In the first point, fertilizers available in richer parts of the world are irrelevant as they're not available in the poorer regions; that restriction doesn't really apply to the second point. There's nothing dishonest about making multiple points in a complex discussion.
But you just said this doesn't apply because you're not counting things like fertilizer.
I actually didn't, go back and read again. I did say that, in some cases, it's a non-option, but that doesn't mean they don't count for anything.
No shit? And what stops them from doing that while growing more efficient crops?
What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield? The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant. While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.
No, it's not that; I just thought I was dealing with an honest person. My bad.
Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?
Different plants need different nutrients, fertilizers often get applied, animals shit, rain brings additional nutrients (it's not pure water), dead plants from last years crop decompose, but most often farmers will rotate crops so they aren't growing the same crop on the same land multiple years in a row.
You aren't too familiar with agriculture, are ya?
The first physical limit I see to population is power consumption: while given sufficient technology you can build orbiting solar arrays or fusion plants to enable arbitrarily high power consumption on Earth, the waste heat still gets dumped here.
Seems you answered your own question. There's that critical thinking I was talking about!
But that's vastly beyond the ~10B people the population is projected to crest at.
And why is the population projected to crest at that point? I could give you the fish, but it'll be better for you if you learn to fish for yourself.
You clearly have zero interest in giving this any amount of critical thought. That's fine, you go off and live in your world and the rest of us will stay here, in this one, where reality dictates that technology can't speed up every process.