I understand entirely your point, and don't want to suggest email is a suitable replacement for Facebook. I was responding to a suggestion that it's impossible to stay in touch with people without Facebook.
That's clearly false; many people can and do stay in touch via email. What is true is your point, that the richness of that interaction is very different.
But it means that people don't have to use Facebook. They choose to, so that they can leverage the additional benefits that platform provides. But it is an option.
You know, unless my body was shooting blood everywhere.
What about the situation where you were perfectly fine, but you'd knocked down someone else badly enough to kill them?
It's a different situation to the one you described, but it is the one you replied to. So to ask the rhetorical question, 10 second txt message or save someone's life?
Who is possibly at risk just because a person chooses to carry a weapon for self defense?
The person carrying the weapon. The person that gets hurt by it for no good reason. The person that gets hurt by it when it's used in an overreaction.
Do you think that possessing such a weapon will magically alter a person's personality so as to turn them into a homicidal maniac?
No, I think people are stupid. Based on a simple IQ measure, half the population are fuckwits. Based on other measures, rather more than that are.
You trust stupid people with weapons? I don't.
The only person endangered by someone carrying a weapon for self defense is anyone looking to harm that person.
Google for "accidental shooting". After you've read the first hundred thousand articles come back here and apologise.
I think instead of continually repeating arguments that have been proven false millions of times over, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position, look at the source of that reasoning, and expose yourself to areas outside of the bubble you grew up in. You may find that reality is not what you've been taught to believe in many areas.
I keep quoting reality. You keep talking shit. Fuck off and leave me alone.
It's a fair point, although nobody in TFA suggested those drinks were alcoholic, or indeed sufficiently alcoholic to make her an unsafe driver (assuming a non-zero legal tolerance in her jurisdiction).
It's also tangential to whether she should be safe leaving alone or not.
In the time I have lived here, there has not once been an instance of someone having their own gun used against them.
Ehab Abdulwahab Ahmed was shot to death with his own gun in Pittsburgh, which I believe is in Pennsylvania.
To be fair, it's a lot more common for other innocent people to be shot than the specific gun owner. But hey, I merely managed to find proof that you're full of shit, and you keep making specious arguments. E.g.
there hasn't been a violent crime against an LTCF holder
I'm not claiming people getting shot are victims of violent crimes. Quite enough people get shot by accident.
You think you could pull a pistol out of my hand? Good luck with that.
A : If I were trying to attack you, you wouldn't have it in your hand until after I'd started the attack. Unless I'm a complete moron I'm going to disable you before you can draw a weapon B : If you're a woman then yes, I probably can take a gun off you. Even if you shoot me 2-3 times I'll take it off you and use it on you. If you're a man you may have enough strength to retain your weapon.
In a rape situation, is an armed woman in a better position. Probably. In a non-rape position, is a paranoid woman carrying a firearm safer for herself and society around her? No.
Tell me, which is more frequent: Situations in which a woman is being raped, or situations in which she isn't?
Why are you so keen that innocent people are put at risk because some fuckwit woman is paranoid about the miniscule likelihood of someone posing a credible rape risk against her.
Shit, if she's that paranoid just wear a panty-girdle. That'll kill the passion quickly enough.
Tell you what. Go do the fucking research yourself.
Compare: A - instances in which people are hurt by guns or knives they own B - instances in which a woman shot or knifed a man attempting to rape her
If you find A is in fact less than B, at that point (and only at that point) come back here and ask for a citation behind for my statement.
Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape
Utterly fucking irrelevant. Most women do not get raped, and do not need to use a weapon to fight off a rapist, and do not attempt to use a weapon to fight off a rapist.
Carrying that weapon does however add an additional risk to them during those periods in their life that somebody is not attempting to rape them.
Some people self-mutilate for sexual gratification
So if someone grabs me roughly from behind, throws me to the ground, drops his trousers and cuts one of his own fingers off, I'll know that hurting him isn't going to be enough.
Thanks, I was wondering how to handle that common situation.
I'd take that risk. Hell, he's going to have to knock me unconscious or otherwise disable me before he can rape me anyway.
It's also not just his ears I'm going to go for - he'll be blind and castrated as quickly as I can manage (albeit castrating someone using my bare hands isn't something I can quickly manage).
I suspect he'd have stopped trying to hurt me long before that (even if it were because I was already dead).
not leaving a party by yourself is the much more obvious step
Just where the fuck do you live that it's acceptable that someone can't leave a party alone?
Don't misunderstand, if a woman's leaving a party late at night I'll check that she's able to get home safely. Telling me she's getting into her car outside and driving home would however qualify.
Having a 20yo tell me he'll escort her to the car would negate any doubts at all. I'm clearly naive, I wouldn't then expect him to force his way into her car and rape her.
A stun gun, pepper spray, or knife probably would have been a more sane approach
All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist. Actually, all more likely to be used against an innocent man than against a rapist - women are remarkably unlikely to get raped, while men are comparatively likely to get assaulted.
Anyway, you appear to have missed the Snow Crash reference..
Can't be arsed trying to find a reference to generally making people disappear, so I'll settle for "disappear in a cloud of smoke" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman
History is full of such examples, what the fuck is the issue with your defence of these archaic superstitious practices?
Scientology is merely younger than other religions, in every other regard it shares their lies, abuses and greed.
To be fair, anybody your/his age has already read 18 Scientology articles on Slashdot. Including the ones that had the comments pulled from them, and the fallout from that.
It's a fair point. I haven't seen any video games in which the consort of a high ranking official gets raped to death by a giraffe then eaten by lions - a real event used to 'entertain' a large crowd in Rome.
Of course, the argument would be that we've progressed a bit since then. These days people merely download video of people being beheaded in the name of some fucked up archaic religion for entertainment.
Actually, graphical fidelity aside, Carmageddon is still the king of gratuitous violence. Many of the games in that list involve the use of violence to achieve a specific aim, or as the result of mental illness (e.g. Postal). Carmageddon's use of violence was entirely and only because it happened to be fun.
Ah, joyful memories of electroshock upgrades and cunning stunt bonuses. There's a game that needs remaking...
Hard to say it's sexist. Maybe he's just had a bad trip to Thailand, where the streetwalker's gender can be decidedly ambiguous.
Not to mention your stereotyping of hedge fund managers. George Soros may be scum, but is he any scummier than a sex worker plying for trade on the streets? He's probably less likely to transmit something medically embarrassing, and not all hedge fund managers are robbing tens of millions, destroying millions of jobs or reducing overall standards of living.
Don't take this personally though. Dadioflex has a number of flaws in his own arguments too, I was just more intrigued by your rapid and immediate defence of scummy whores.
If you want the real successor to the N900, get an iPhone and jailbreak it.
Hang on? I can get an iPhone and install apps over the air, upgrade the OS over the air, install Flash and anything else I want on it without having to abuse known security flaws, and slide it open for a hardware keyboard?
I love how your thesis keeps changing as I pull holes in it.
Lets take Transformers II. Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat. State that it's a great film because it had massive box office sales, and the discussion is immediately forced into examining your mental state.
Maybe you do have to use financial reward as a measure because you lack any artistic appreciation. That still doesn't explain why your theory states that any artwork that is not commercially exploited is worse than the streak on the pavement left by someone slipping over on a turd left by an asthmatic dog.
Clearly an indefensible position, yet one you cling to.
bullshit walks
Remember to take a break regularly, you're going to wear out your shoes soon.
so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me
Good to know you reject entirely a film like The Shawshank Redemption, a film that flopped at the box office.
Must be entirely coincidence that many peoples high subjective rating of the film happens in this instance to be backed up by phenomenal video and DVD sales, which have assured significant profits to the film makers.
Methinks the character weakness isn't in those that look beyond mere box office receipts..
Slashdot Mirror
why can't I wear my tutu to Walmart?
wtf? Let her wear her tutu to Walmart!
I understand entirely your point, and don't want to suggest email is a suitable replacement for Facebook. I was responding to a suggestion that it's impossible to stay in touch with people without Facebook.
That's clearly false; many people can and do stay in touch via email. What is true is your point, that the richness of that interaction is very different.
But it means that people don't have to use Facebook. They choose to, so that they can leverage the additional benefits that platform provides. But it is an option.
This fails to fall under the typical terms of duress
"Do X or you lose your job" isn't duress?
Anybody that has facebook also has an email address. What's wrong with using that?
You know, unless my body was shooting blood everywhere.
What about the situation where you were perfectly fine, but you'd knocked down someone else badly enough to kill them?
It's a different situation to the one you described, but it is the one you replied to. So to ask the rhetorical question, 10 second txt message or save someone's life?
Who is possibly at risk just because a person chooses to carry a weapon for self defense?
The person carrying the weapon.
The person that gets hurt by it for no good reason.
The person that gets hurt by it when it's used in an overreaction.
Do you think that possessing such a weapon will magically alter a person's personality so as to turn them into a homicidal maniac?
No, I think people are stupid. Based on a simple IQ measure, half the population are fuckwits. Based on other measures, rather more than that are.
You trust stupid people with weapons? I don't.
The only person endangered by someone carrying a weapon for self defense is anyone looking to harm that person.
Google for "accidental shooting". After you've read the first hundred thousand articles come back here and apologise.
I think instead of continually repeating arguments that have been proven false millions of times over, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position, look at the source of that reasoning, and expose yourself to areas outside of the bubble you grew up in. You may find that reality is not what you've been taught to believe in many areas.
I keep quoting reality. You keep talking shit. Fuck off and leave me alone.
All excellent points. Although
And if you think you wouldn't be raped in prison, you are delusional.
Nah, I'm just not pretty :)
It's a fair point, although nobody in TFA suggested those drinks were alcoholic, or indeed sufficiently alcoholic to make her an unsafe driver (assuming a non-zero legal tolerance in her jurisdiction).
It's also tangential to whether she should be safe leaving alone or not.
In the time I have lived here, there has not once been an instance of someone having their own gun used against them.
Ehab Abdulwahab Ahmed was shot to death with his own gun in Pittsburgh, which I believe is in Pennsylvania.
To be fair, it's a lot more common for other innocent people to be shot than the specific gun owner. But hey, I merely managed to find proof that you're full of shit, and you keep making specious arguments. E.g.
there hasn't been a violent crime against an LTCF holder
I'm not claiming people getting shot are victims of violent crimes. Quite enough people get shot by accident.
You think you could pull a pistol out of my hand? Good luck with that.
A : If I were trying to attack you, you wouldn't have it in your hand until after I'd started the attack. Unless I'm a complete moron I'm going to disable you before you can draw a weapon
B : If you're a woman then yes, I probably can take a gun off you. Even if you shoot me 2-3 times I'll take it off you and use it on you. If you're a man you may have enough strength to retain your weapon.
In a rape situation, is an armed woman in a better position. Probably. In a non-rape position, is a paranoid woman carrying a firearm safer for herself and society around her? No.
Tell me, which is more frequent: Situations in which a woman is being raped, or situations in which she isn't?
Why are you so keen that innocent people are put at risk because some fuckwit woman is paranoid about the miniscule likelihood of someone posing a credible rape risk against her.
Shit, if she's that paranoid just wear a panty-girdle. That'll kill the passion quickly enough.
*citation needed*
Tell you what. Go do the fucking research yourself.
Compare:
A - instances in which people are hurt by guns or knives they own
B - instances in which a woman shot or knifed a man attempting to rape her
If you find A is in fact less than B, at that point (and only at that point) come back here and ask for a citation behind for my statement.
Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape
Utterly fucking irrelevant. Most women do not get raped, and do not need to use a weapon to fight off a rapist, and do not attempt to use a weapon to fight off a rapist.
Carrying that weapon does however add an additional risk to them during those periods in their life that somebody is not attempting to rape them.
That's my point.
Some people self-mutilate for sexual gratification
So if someone grabs me roughly from behind, throws me to the ground, drops his trousers and cuts one of his own fingers off, I'll know that hurting him isn't going to be enough.
Thanks, I was wondering how to handle that common situation.
I'd take that risk. Hell, he's going to have to knock me unconscious or otherwise disable me before he can rape me anyway.
It's also not just his ears I'm going to go for - he'll be blind and castrated as quickly as I can manage (albeit castrating someone using my bare hands isn't something I can quickly manage).
I suspect he'd have stopped trying to hurt me long before that (even if it were because I was already dead).
not leaving a party by yourself is the much more obvious step
Just where the fuck do you live that it's acceptable that someone can't leave a party alone?
Don't misunderstand, if a woman's leaving a party late at night I'll check that she's able to get home safely. Telling me she's getting into her car outside and driving home would however qualify.
Having a 20yo tell me he'll escort her to the car would negate any doubts at all. I'm clearly naive, I wouldn't then expect him to force his way into her car and rape her.
A stun gun, pepper spray, or knife probably would have been a more sane approach
All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist. Actually, all more likely to be used against an innocent man than against a rapist - women are remarkably unlikely to get raped, while men are comparatively likely to get assaulted.
Anyway, you appear to have missed the Snow Crash reference..
The legend is that Julf took it down and wiped his disks over a weekend to prevent identities being revealed.
Wikipedia and other sources refute that legend somewhat, but yeah, the grief caused by Scientology appears to be a significant factor.
Julf Helsingius is one of my heroes of the Internet.
Give me one instance when a Church (place denomination here) sued someone for libel
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy
made their former members vanish
Can't be arsed trying to find a reference to generally making people disappear, so I'll settle for "disappear in a cloud of smoke" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman
History is full of such examples, what the fuck is the issue with your defence of these archaic superstitious practices?
Scientology is merely younger than other religions, in every other regard it shares their lies, abuses and greed.
To be fair, anybody your/his age has already read 18 Scientology articles on Slashdot. Including the ones that had the comments pulled from them, and the fallout from that.
Me, I'm still pissed with them over anon.penet.fi
It's a fair point. I haven't seen any video games in which the consort of a high ranking official gets raped to death by a giraffe then eaten by lions - a real event used to 'entertain' a large crowd in Rome.
Of course, the argument would be that we've progressed a bit since then. These days people merely download video of people being beheaded in the name of some fucked up archaic religion for entertainment.
I'd rather they played computer games.
Actually, graphical fidelity aside, Carmageddon is still the king of gratuitous violence. Many of the games in that list involve the use of violence to achieve a specific aim, or as the result of mental illness (e.g. Postal). Carmageddon's use of violence was entirely and only because it happened to be fun.
Ah, joyful memories of electroshock upgrades and cunning stunt bonuses. There's a game that needs remaking...
Hard to say it's sexist. Maybe he's just had a bad trip to Thailand, where the streetwalker's gender can be decidedly ambiguous.
Not to mention your stereotyping of hedge fund managers. George Soros may be scum, but is he any scummier than a sex worker plying for trade on the streets? He's probably less likely to transmit something medically embarrassing, and not all hedge fund managers are robbing tens of millions, destroying millions of jobs or reducing overall standards of living.
Don't take this personally though. Dadioflex has a number of flaws in his own arguments too, I was just more intrigued by your rapid and immediate defence of scummy whores.
Say, how much is that bridge?
Just that the UK has a 20% VAT rate right now. VAT is a sales tax.
If you want the real successor to the N900, get an iPhone and jailbreak it.
Hang on? I can get an iPhone and install apps over the air, upgrade the OS over the air, install Flash and anything else I want on it without having to abuse known security flaws, and slide it open for a hardware keyboard?
N900 replacement my arse.
I love how your thesis keeps changing as I pull holes in it.
Lets take Transformers II.
Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat.
State that it's a great film because it had massive box office sales, and the discussion is immediately forced into examining your mental state.
Maybe you do have to use financial reward as a measure because you lack any artistic appreciation. That still doesn't explain why your theory states that any artwork that is not commercially exploited is worse than the streak on the pavement left by someone slipping over on a turd left by an asthmatic dog.
Clearly an indefensible position, yet one you cling to.
bullshit walks
Remember to take a break regularly, you're going to wear out your shoes soon.
so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me
Good to know you reject entirely a film like The Shawshank Redemption, a film that flopped at the box office.
Must be entirely coincidence that many peoples high subjective rating of the film happens in this instance to be backed up by phenomenal video and DVD sales, which have assured significant profits to the film makers.
Methinks the character weakness isn't in those that look beyond mere box office receipts..
Actually I can believe that bit. :)