Fair enough. Maybe I'm over-reacting a bit. Just getting rather tired of the smug bigotry displayed by many towards Americans in general, and "hicks" in particular.
He also apparently sued the University of Wisconsin claiming their fess violated his first amednment rights because they funded such disagreeable things as "Day care" and "WYSPRIG"
Good for him. Why should he have to pay for your decision to spread your genes? Take care of your own damned problems, and stop using your snot-nosed brat as an excuse to take other peoples money.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Yeah, you're right, it's pretty messed up to make 12 the age of consent. I always thought 18 was too high, but dropping it down to 12 is fucking ridiculous.
Hell if you are an evolutionist you'd have to agree that until we learned to enjoy sex as a fun activity, it was purely for procreation, advancement of the species.
No, if you were an evolutionist, you'd have to be a genocidal racist communist with no morality at all. Or, at least, that's what I've heard from the preachers. Luckily I've never met anyone who self-identifies as a "Evolutionist", so I'm safe for now. I find it hard to believe that the amazing writings of Darwin could possibly spawn such a fanatical movement, but preachers wouldn't lie to me, right?
Anyway, while I don't know what an Evolutionist would say on the subject, those of us who don't ignorantly deny evolutionary theory would like to tell you that "we" always enjoyed sex. All mammals do, so that particular trait became predominant LONG before the Human race showed up.
His post is now modded up as Funny (60% Funny, 20% Troll, 10% Flamebait, to be precise), so/. collective consciousness clearly took it as a non-PC joke. I suggest leaving it at that.
As I said, hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry. If he had said the same thing about someone from a predominantly black area, he would have gotten modded down into Tartarus. So no, I won't leave it alone. I can't believe that you'd try to justify bigotry by saying "hey, it's ok, everyone thinks it's funny!". I suppose if we were hanging a "redneck" from a tree, you'd say "hey, it's ok, everyone is doing it!".
Popular opinion has never been a good guide for morality, and it certainly isn't in this case.
The Honorable Representative should read her own laws, because it most certainly is a crime for a person to use a condom (properly) if the other party to the condom usage is under 18 (under 16 and it's a felony). If both are under 18, then it is mutual statutory rape under the laws of the fine state of Wisconsin. So yeah, Mrs. Roys, using a condom is a crime for the vast majority of high school students in your state.
That's stupid. It's like saying that using a scarf is illegal, because X number of people use scarves to strangle someone to death.
No, using a condom is not illegal. Having sex may be illegal for people of a certain age, but they don't get charged with an extra crime because they also used a condom. Your logic sucks.
Has been posted dozens of times by me and others. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it. Judging by that, as well as other comments you've made, it's starting to become fairly obvious that you're just trolling.
Clearly my comment is pissing off a bunch of people, so let me put it like this: the character Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel was not created because every southerner is an upstanding intelligent member of society.
Wow, you're just a complete cretin, aren't you? While trying to make things better, you manage to make them 10 times worse.
Hey, you know, the Disney cartoon character called "Thursday" wasn't created because every black person is a civilized, intelligent, well mannered, productive member of society!
No, I'm sure that undertakers and EMTs don't joke about killing people.
Yeah, I'm sure that you're sure about the rest of your comment too, but you're completely wrong about both parts.
the attack on a vehicle trying to rescue the journalist, the wish that the journalist would make a move for a weapon, killing him even though he doesn't, the lack of any evidence that the people fired upon were combatants, the fact that they never acted like combatants
You know, most people stop making up stories around the time they're 10.
A phaser cannon and full complement of photon torpedoes.
Who gives a shit what weapons it had? The actions of the men in the van indicated that they were allied with the men on the ground. That made them legitimate targets, especially when they started removing evidence/intel from the scene. If they really were picking up the weapons also - as the guy in the video indicates - that just provides even more justification for shooting them, but it's certainly not required.
Of course it isn't what happened, they were driving through their neighbourhood, (taking their children to school) didn't see or even hear any fighting (the apaches were over a kilometer away) and found some wounded people. They tried to help. Then they got shot. What battle?
That's a wonderful story you've concocted! Where could I buy your books?
Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society.
That's idiotic. How do you think coroners keep their spirits up? Undertakers? EMT's? Police? You don't think that every single career which deals with death is similarly filled with jokes about it? I don't wanna call you "naive", but every other word which comes to mind is worse.
They may be a bit trigger-happy, sure, but they still didn't do anything wrong. As for their sense of humor, it'd be familiar to anyone who's been in battle. It's a choice between laughter and depression, and I'd much rather laughter win out.
I think it's important to note that these guys were reporters, and there were 2 children in there, I wouldn't have been able to pick that out.
Bingo! You think the pilots were able to pick up on that? Unlike you, they WERE able to pick up on the weapons that these people were carrying, but how do you expect them to know if any of them were reporters, or to see that there are children in the van?
This is exactly why it's a bad idea for reporters to hang out with militants, and for anyone to drive a van with children in it into an area that just got blasted by a gunship.
So no, I don't think wikileaks offering their interpretation on this is out of line since there's so little information to the uninitiated in the actual video.
The problem is that their "interpretation" is completely one-sided. To use your example of a scientific paper, it's like saying "This shows DNA compacted in the presence of protein X" while saying nothing about the 50,000 ofhter times where DNA was not compacted in the presence of protein X. It's dishonest because, while you're not actually falsifying data, you are shaping the data to support a conclusion which is unwarranted. Pons and Fleischmann did something along those lines, and it cost them dearly.
I don't wanna speak for him, but I'm thinking his point was probably something along the lines of "you're a willfully blind fool". If you really can't see weapons in that video, you must be wearing some pretty intense ideological blinders.
Yes, I imagine you do. I'm guessing your idea is that 'someone tossed it there,' which, coincidentally, is also the reason for trashy people: society tossed them there.
Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.
In the report you will find: "Parents are unsuitable and create an environment where the children believe the government will harm them" which is the sole concern listed.
Very true. In the report you will also find:
"Barry COOPER and his wife Candace COOPER use drugs, encourage the use of drugs by kids, and publicly admit to allowing the children in the home [to] smoke drugs."
Funny how you nutjobs always leave out the real reasons for any given event. It's like when the 9/11 lunatics start yelling about fire melting steel. You completely ignore the actual cause, and instead whip out some insane conspiracy theory to explain results which already have a completely rational explanation.
Ah, so because some members of a group fit into a stereotype, that means it's ok to use it as a generalization. I'm sure you'd, likewise, have no problem with me saying that all blacks are criminals, and the French are smelly wine-guzzling cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
They would likely be flying above the clouds, if possible, so rain would not matter much, except for avoiding the major storms.
That's all well and good, but it raises a new issue: how do they plan to bring enough breathing oxygen for a trip that's likely to take weeks? Hypoxia might not be an issue for a few hours, if you're acclimated, but it IS going to be a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. Maybe I'm over-reacting a bit. Just getting rather tired of the smug bigotry displayed by many towards Americans in general, and "hicks" in particular.
He also apparently sued the University of Wisconsin claiming their fess violated his first amednment rights because they funded such disagreeable things as "Day care" and "WYSPRIG"
Good for him. Why should he have to pay for your decision to spread your genes? Take care of your own damned problems, and stop using your snot-nosed brat as an excuse to take other peoples money.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Yeah, you're right, it's pretty messed up to make 12 the age of consent. I always thought 18 was too high, but dropping it down to 12 is fucking ridiculous.
Hell if you are an evolutionist you'd have to agree that until we learned to enjoy sex as a fun activity, it was purely for procreation, advancement of the species.
No, if you were an evolutionist, you'd have to be a genocidal racist communist with no morality at all. Or, at least, that's what I've heard from the preachers. Luckily I've never met anyone who self-identifies as a "Evolutionist", so I'm safe for now. I find it hard to believe that the amazing writings of Darwin could possibly spawn such a fanatical movement, but preachers wouldn't lie to me, right?
Anyway, while I don't know what an Evolutionist would say on the subject, those of us who don't ignorantly deny evolutionary theory would like to tell you that "we" always enjoyed sex. All mammals do, so that particular trait became predominant LONG before the Human race showed up.
His post is now modded up as Funny (60% Funny, 20% Troll, 10% Flamebait, to be precise), so /. collective consciousness clearly took it as a non-PC joke. I suggest leaving it at that.
As I said, hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry. If he had said the same thing about someone from a predominantly black area, he would have gotten modded down into Tartarus. So no, I won't leave it alone. I can't believe that you'd try to justify bigotry by saying "hey, it's ok, everyone thinks it's funny!". I suppose if we were hanging a "redneck" from a tree, you'd say "hey, it's ok, everyone is doing it!".
Popular opinion has never been a good guide for morality, and it certainly isn't in this case.
The Honorable Representative should read her own laws, because it most certainly is a crime for a person to use a condom (properly) if the other party to the condom usage is under 18 (under 16 and it's a felony). If both are under 18, then it is mutual statutory rape under the laws of the fine state of Wisconsin. So yeah, Mrs. Roys, using a condom is a crime for the vast majority of high school students in your state.
That's stupid. It's like saying that using a scarf is illegal, because X number of people use scarves to strangle someone to death.
No, using a condom is not illegal. Having sex may be illegal for people of a certain age, but they don't get charged with an extra crime because they also used a condom. Your logic sucks.
And your excuse for the attack on the van...
Has been posted dozens of times by me and others. I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it. Judging by that, as well as other comments you've made, it's starting to become fairly obvious that you're just trolling.
Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.
I'm guessing you don't recycle.
Actually, I recycle or compost close to 100% of my trash. However ... I shudder to think what kind of analogy you're trying to make. Soylent Green?
If you say it jokingly, it's absolutely fine
I tend to agree, although not everyone would. Problem is, he wasn't joking. Hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry.
Clearly my comment is pissing off a bunch of people, so let me put it like this: the character Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel was not created because every southerner is an upstanding intelligent member of society.
Wow, you're just a complete cretin, aren't you? While trying to make things better, you manage to make them 10 times worse.
Hey, you know, the Disney cartoon character called "Thursday" wasn't created because every black person is a civilized, intelligent, well mannered, productive member of society!
Twit.
You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to point out that you're an idiot. It's a win-win situation!
No, I'm sure that undertakers and EMTs don't joke about killing people.
Yeah, I'm sure that you're sure about the rest of your comment too, but you're completely wrong about both parts.
the attack on a vehicle trying to rescue the journalist, the wish that the journalist would make a move for a weapon, killing him even though he doesn't, the lack of any evidence that the people fired upon were combatants, the fact that they never acted like combatants
You know, most people stop making up stories around the time they're 10.
And the van? What weapon did it have?
A phaser cannon and full complement of photon torpedoes.
Who gives a shit what weapons it had? The actions of the men in the van indicated that they were allied with the men on the ground. That made them legitimate targets, especially when they started removing evidence/intel from the scene. If they really were picking up the weapons also - as the guy in the video indicates - that just provides even more justification for shooting them, but it's certainly not required.
Of course it isn't what happened, they were driving through their neighbourhood, (taking their children to school) didn't see or even hear any fighting (the apaches were over a kilometer away) and found some wounded people. They tried to help. Then they got shot. What battle?
That's a wonderful story you've concocted! Where could I buy your books?
Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society.
That's idiotic. How do you think coroners keep their spirits up? Undertakers? EMT's? Police? You don't think that every single career which deals with death is similarly filled with jokes about it? I don't wanna call you "naive", but every other word which comes to mind is worse.
They may be a bit trigger-happy, sure, but they still didn't do anything wrong. As for their sense of humor, it'd be familiar to anyone who's been in battle. It's a choice between laughter and depression, and I'd much rather laughter win out.
I think it's important to note that these guys were reporters, and there were 2 children in there, I wouldn't have been able to pick that out.
Bingo! You think the pilots were able to pick up on that? Unlike you, they WERE able to pick up on the weapons that these people were carrying, but how do you expect them to know if any of them were reporters, or to see that there are children in the van?
This is exactly why it's a bad idea for reporters to hang out with militants, and for anyone to drive a van with children in it into an area that just got blasted by a gunship.
So no, I don't think wikileaks offering their interpretation on this is out of line since there's so little information to the uninitiated in the actual video.
The problem is that their "interpretation" is completely one-sided. To use your example of a scientific paper, it's like saying "This shows DNA compacted in the presence of protein X" while saying nothing about the 50,000 ofhter times where DNA was not compacted in the presence of protein X. It's dishonest because, while you're not actually falsifying data, you are shaping the data to support a conclusion which is unwarranted. Pons and Fleischmann did something along those lines, and it cost them dearly.
The people in the van?
No. They died because they were stupid. It sucks, but there's a reason why the Darwin Awards site never runs out of material.
So what was your point again?
I don't wanna speak for him, but I'm thinking his point was probably something along the lines of "you're a willfully blind fool". If you really can't see weapons in that video, you must be wearing some pretty intense ideological blinders.
Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule, but seriously, go hang out in Paris for a couple weeks and see for yourself.
FTFY
Yes, I imagine you do. I'm guessing your idea is that 'someone tossed it there,' which, coincidentally, is also the reason for trashy people: society tossed them there.
Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.
In the report you will find:
"Parents are unsuitable and create an environment where the children believe the government will harm them" which is the sole concern listed.
Very true. In the report you will also find:
"Barry COOPER and his wife Candace COOPER use drugs, encourage the use of drugs by kids, and publicly admit to allowing the children in the home [to] smoke drugs."
Funny how you nutjobs always leave out the real reasons for any given event. It's like when the 9/11 lunatics start yelling about fire melting steel. You completely ignore the actual cause, and instead whip out some insane conspiracy theory to explain results which already have a completely rational explanation.
have you ever visited the south?
Ah, so because some members of a group fit into a stereotype, that means it's ok to use it as a generalization. I'm sure you'd, likewise, have no problem with me saying that all blacks are criminals, and the French are smelly wine-guzzling cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Oh, I get it. You see you quoted the poll that supports my argument rather then quoting the poll that helps yours.
It's the same poll. I didn't ignore any of it.
Also, when did you stop beating your wife?
Just before you stopped molesting your daughter.
They would likely be flying above the clouds, if possible, so rain would not matter much, except for avoiding the major storms.
That's all well and good, but it raises a new issue: how do they plan to bring enough breathing oxygen for a trip that's likely to take weeks? Hypoxia might not be an issue for a few hours, if you're acclimated, but it IS going to be a problem.