At 5/17/09 09:59 AM, Vladith wrote: Why do some people love guns? Why are some so opposed to making guns that aren't used for hunting outlawed? I just don't get it.
Please explain.
1. Self defense
Human beings have an innate right to life, and an extension of that right to life is the right to defend one's person. I happen to believe that one also has the right to defend one's loved ones, and legislation in the locality where I reside supports that notion.
Firearms are essential to self defense for law abiding citizens for the following reasons:
A. Law abiding citizens are not always on equal physical terms with criminal aggressors.
The profile of the average violent criminal is a young male, late teens to early twenties, which a violent past and a propensity for hurting innocent people or threatening them.
Law abiding citizens can be elderly individuals, woman (who typically lack the upper body strength of their male counterparts), or disabled. All of these groups can easily be trained in the use of firearms, which they can then use to stave off violent aggression from physically superior foes. Firearms increase a woman's ability to defend herself by a factor of four, on average, for example.
B. Criminals will use whatever weapons of opportunity present themselves, irrespective of the law.
Criminals, particularly those bent on invading homes and raping and murdering the occupants, are not particularly interested in firearms legislation. Therefore, they will make firearms (zip guns can be readily constructed in home workshops from materials available to a child), buy them on the black market (as long as a teenager can get a hold of some weed, a criminal will be able to get a hold of a firearm), or resort to knives, rocks, broken bottles, or strangling hands.
Firearms provide the law abiding citizen with an effective means of responding to all of these possible threats and still having a chance to defend his or her loved ones.
Gun control deprives the law abiding citizen of his or her means of defense without sufficiently curtailing the capaibilities of violent criminals.
C. Handguns are the fastest, most discrete tool available that allows a citizen to stop a lethal threat immediately.
A handgun can be easily concealed by even the smallest persons, and can be brought to bear very quickly in order to stop a threat, in many cases without bloodshed. Consider, for example, the Pearl MIssissippi school shooting, in which a young man came to school and gunned down two classmates with a rifle before an assistant principal retireved a pistol and stopped the incident without further bloodshed.
2. Protection against a tyrranical government
The founding fathers of the United States of America recognized that a free nation must be an armed nation. A government whose citizens are not armed needs not fear being overthrown in a revoltion - it can simply deploy the military to quash all rebellions. When the government holds all of the power, it can enact any law or levy any tax - no matter how draconian or absurd. You need only look at a map of the world to see the names of hundreds of such dictatorships.
However, an educated electorate, armed with firearms, presents a major threat to a potentially tyrranical government.
If the powers that be in the United States suddenly decided to tax income at 100%, for example, they would have to consider that 50% of the 300 million people in this country are armed. They would be facing an invading force that already occupies every square inch of their soil and is comprised of 80 - 100 million armed troops, ready to fight. It would be a hopeless battle, even for a military as advanced as our own.
If you have doubts consider that we're having such a tough time over seas, fighting a much smaller, more poorly armed force that isn't even on our soil. Also look at how impossible people must of thought it would have been for the American Revolutionaries - a bunch of bumpkins with hunting muskets from their houses - to overthrow the might of the British Empire, which lived by the motto "The sun never sets on the British Empire" and could amass an army of readcoats that stretched to the horizon.
3. Defense of the homeland
Going to use the US as an example again. An invading nation would also have to consider that America is a viper's nest of armed citizens.
In fact, when Admirals of the Japanese navy were questioned on why they didn't invade California after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, they responded that they saw no future in getting bogged down in a quagmire on our soil, where 1/2 of all homes have a firearm in them. The casualties would simply have been too great.
In this way, the American tradition of firearms ownership saved us an invasion on our own soil.
--
In short, firearms rights are necessary to defend our freedoms from infringement by criminals, by our own government, and by foreign governments.
"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority arrives." - Robert A. Heinlein
It's a sad but true quote. If you don't believe that, think about police officers, who, as agents of government authority, carry some sort of weapon all over the world. Typically guns.
4. Target shooting
This is a far 4th place, but you asked and it is something people enjoy doing. A lot of people shoot pistols recreationally.
At 4/4/09 03:06 PM, Sawke wrote:At 4/4/09 02:16 PM, Deradius wrote:Maybe...or maybe you're just thinking like a human. That because something is "superior" that means it will be very likely to attack. They could just want to help us, or learn about us. If they are an advanced civilization maybe they've learned to be advanced without being destructive and learned how to function without greed. An impossible concept to humans because we have yet to try it without it totally failing but maybe somewhere it's possible.
2. If you look at the path that human history has taken, bad things tend to occur when one vastly superior group (technologically speaking) encounters a less advanced group. (Hint: Lots of deaths, etc.) It's entirely possible that they may want to enslave us / kill us / take our planet.
The problem is that people would most likely try to attack the aliens out of fear or out of need to dominate. Which honestly doesn't make us sound much different from animals who attack out of feeling threatened. So maybe we haven't evolved so much if our first reaction is to attack. Or feel fear. But like i said If you were an alien you wouldn't come within a million light years of this planet, not out of fear, just mainly disgust and having better things to do.
... Hence why I didn't say that any aliens that showed up would "certainly" attack. I used terms such as "likely" or "probable".
The fact of the matter, though, is that in order to get here an alien would most probably have to spend a tremendous amount of resources and time to build a ship and travel here. (Other possibilities exist, but this is the most likely scenario.)
That sort of investment strongly suggests the need of a return.... Maybe they'll be satisfied with the return of just meeting someone new. Probably not.
Thus making humans the stupidest fucking species EVER! you don't see cows and ants thinking up ways to kill eachother. Honestly if you were an alien and saw us shooting and blowing eachother up would YOU come down for a visit?:
This is primarily because ants and cows are not capable of thinking up ways to kill each other, while we are.
As long as resources are finite, competition will exist. As long as competition exists, someone will be willing to kill in order to win. Depressing, isn't it?
I don't doubt that extraterrestrial life is probable, but I doubt we'll ever see it. I think this is a good thing.
There are several possibilities:
1. Intelligent life is inherently self destructive. Species tend to invent nuclear weapons and wipe themselves out before they ever develop any form of travel fast enough to get them into contact with any other intelligent species.
2. It is simply not possible to reach other intelligent species due to the sheer distance involved. It's possible that there is no way to design a craft fast enough to get its living cargo to a target destination with intelligent life before the entire crew or life on the target planet became extinct.
3. Species develop in such a way that their communication / technology / means of making contact / brain function are so apples and oranges that it's difficult for us to even perceive each other as sentient.
...Note that even if extraterrestrial life were to show up here, we would have problems because:
1. That life would be much more advanced than our own - technology to travel interstellar distances means significant technological superiority.
2. If you look at the path that human history has taken, bad things tend to occur when one vastly superior group (technologically speaking) encounters a less advanced group. (Hint: Lots of deaths, etc.) It's entirely possible that they may want to enslave us / kill us / take our planet.
From a thermodynamic perspective, life as we know it (thus human life) is untenable.
Current cosmological thinking suggests that, as the entropy of the universe is ever increasing, the known universe will become progressively colder and darker (as galaxies and stars continue to spread out from one another and die out as the universe expands).
Source material for stars will dry up. No new stars will be made, but existing stars will continue to die.
Life, if it still exists, will crowd around the last few existing stars. Eventually, energy availability will be so low that any life that exists would have to operate on the time scale of trillions of years - very, very slowly - to survive at all. Ultimately, even this will be impossible.
So, as a species, we are doomed on the timeline of billions upon billions of years.
...I suspect we won't have to worry about it. Israel has nukes. Iran will shortly. India and Pakistan both have nukes. North Korea has nukes or will shortly. The United States has nukes. China has nukes.
Given the rate of nuclear proliferation, the cyclical nature of the global economy, and the fact that war is a constant in human civilization is seems a foregone conclusion to me that we will be wiped out by nuclear holocaust if an asteroid or plague doesn't take us out first.
This is all assuming, mind you, that we even want to continue to exist as a species. The freedom we enjoy in the United States is a rare thing in history - the totalitarian states you hear about over seas where people are worked to death in sweatshops and routinely killed for no particular reason whatsoever seem to be much more common in the grand scope of things. Not all life is desireable.
Calm down, this happens all the time. It's just a minor temporal hiccup. When it happened to Donald Trump, the hair on his head ended up... well, anyway, nevermind.
The point is, here's what you need to do:
1. Don't be alarmed, but you're probably wearing a backpack. If so, look in your backpack. You'll find a hat to hide the belly button. Here in 2009, the FDA has not yet approved belly button transplanation surgery, and belly buttons on foreheads won't be stylish until 2035. In your own time, this little accident might have made you quite popular without all of the expensivep lastic surgery, but here you're just kind of creepy.
2. Write yourself a letter and put it somewhere you know for sure that you will find it. If your house is still there, put it wherever you keep things you don't want anyone else to find. The wiggly floorboard under which you keep your secret stash of... erh.. gardening magazines would be a good place. The letter needs to say the following:
"Dear zrick,
The following is absolutely imperative. This is a letter from you in the past. [Insert facts only you could know here to convince yourself.] On 19 December 2044, you need to wear a backpack all day. In this backpack you MUST have the following things:
1. A sports almanac (or almanacs) covering the years 2008 - 2044.
2. A hat that can hide your forehead. (You'll thank me later.)
3. Some tweezers. You'll need them for the feathers. (Don't ask.)
4. Some heavy duty aspirin.
5. A towel. "
3. Take the sports almanac in your backpack to a city called Las Vegas. It was in Nevada before the great lubricant flood of 2025. Bet on teams you know are going to win. Enjoy your vast riches, and build a huge empire.
4. Just a caution. If some snot nosed kid or some wild eyed professor type ever come snooping around, you know what to do.
Good luck.
"Is he nuts or does he have some sort of personal vendetta against the immigration center?"
Newscasters, reporters, commentators, and members of the general public in the coming days will attempt to attach some sort of reason to this man's actions. The human mind is a slave to logic, and when presented with a horrific phenomenon, seeks desperately to understand and explain it as some means of asserting control over the situation - or at the very least, over the concept of the situation.
When a student in a school does it, the media and the authorities turn to bad parenting, bad childhoods, the influence of demonic rock music or violent video games, the influence of the media, et cetera.
When an adult does it, people look at whether or not he or she has been laid off. They look at social pressures, at past evidence of mental instability.
In all cases, advocates of gun control try to argue that somehow, if the law abiding were deprived of the right to own guns, this would not have happened. As if people didn't go on rampages with illegally obtained guns, or as if these monsters wouldn't use bombs or knives or a vehicle instead.
Reasons are brought up that attempt to explain or rationalize away the act, because no one wishes to confront a few cold truths about these events:
1. There is no explanation based in reason for why these things happen. It is driven by emotion, by irrational instability, and by the desire to make other people suffer as the shooter has suffered.
2. There is nothing unique about the shooter that separates him or her from anyone else, in particular. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. When pushed in the right way and under the right circumstances, any human being is capable of terrible atrocities. Ultimately, we're all violent, unstable, vicious animals. Turn on the television any night of the week and watch the news. It's war and murder, assaults, rapes, robberies, people shooting and stabbing each other to death and bashing each other's heads in with bricks in every corner of the country. This is who we are.
3. The only possible way to safeguard against this sort of violence is for people to be equipped and prepared to employ countervailing lethal force to step the aggressor before more innocent life can be taken. More restrictive gun laws won't help (they will only make the law abiding more vulnerable), more law enforcement won't help (they can't be everywhere at once, and law enforcement is, by definiton, reactive), the government can't help (as their only tools are military and law enforcement). The fact of the matter is that anywhere, at any time, and for any reason or no reason at all, someone could decide to kill you. If and when that time comes, you will either be equipped to fight for your life, or you will die.
Make no mistake - I am not condoning this man's behavior or saying that it is even remotely acceptable. I'm saying only that the capacity to commit these acts is common to all of us. We are elevated above monsters like this not because we are not capable of senseless murder, but because we choose not to participate in it.
This is a tough one.
Functionally, there is nothing that the United States can do without intruding on Mexico's status as a sovereign state.
The best course of action for the United States would be to beef up border security (potentially in a military, rather than law enforcement sort of way) and wait until Mexico asks for help.
From Mexico's perspective, my understanding is that there is a lot of work to be done in dealing with corruption in government there. Once that is taken care of, I think it would probably be a good idea to provide as much funding as possible to law enforcement and start fighting the problem the way you do anywhere else. Put undercover officers out there, have them find out who is in charge, and imprison the leadership.
As it stands, some media sources almost make it sound like they are headed toward martial law or complete breakdown.
:Irrelivant. The leaders who would do that are, as a group, very pro-gun.:
Do you mean irrelevant? If so, what does the concept of pro-gun leaders have to do with resisting a tyrranical government? Please read the body of the post before responding.
:"...I don't really see Al Qaeda storming the beaches..." (paraphrased, because I deleted the original quote and don't feel like going back to get it):
You have a short memory. Al Qaeda is not the first foe we've faced, nor will it be the last. There are numerous possible circumstances that could result in the citizenry needing to repel an invasion. Nations are invaded frequently all over the world - to opine that it could not happen here is arrogance.
There are other classes of weapons that can do either or both sufficiantly.:
I addressed that issue in the original post. I encourage you to look there if you have questions.
You just asked a bunch of people you don't know on the internet whether you should "be cool" and let the child of your ex-girlfriend smoke weed when he gets older.
For one thing, since this is discoverable evidence in the custody dispute (as is anything else like this you've written), I suspect the custody dispute may not go well.
For another, I'd suggest that you get ready you have a paradigm shift. If you're going to be an effective parent to that child, they way you understand the world is going to have to turn upside down very quickly.
An assault weapons ban is a bad idea, and there are a number of reasons that this is true.
First and foremost, it defeats the purpose of the second amendment.
The founding fathers' goals in drafting the second amendment were to provide the citizenry with a means to defend itself in the event that:
A. The government became a tyrrany (something they were familiar with) and needed to be overthrown, or
B. The homeland was invaded and required a last line of defense (something else they were familiar with).
C. Any citizen needed to lawful defend him/herself for any reason against predators of the two or four legged kind.
I'll go through the specific aims and explain how they relate to 'assault' style weapons in the modern day:
A. The government becomes a tyrrany and needs to be overthrown:
Per Heller v. the District of Columbia, the populous needs to have access to arms equivalent to what an average patrol officer or foot soldier might be expected to carry. These would be arms up to and including a semi-automatic battle rifle, like an AR-15, which many officers carry in the trunks of their vehicles now.
Such a rifle is superior to a hunting rifle in combat because it has a higher magazine capacity, is more resistant to wear, tear and neglect, and can engage targets at ranges varying from contact distance to several hundred meters with greater versatility than what a deer gun could.
How could a citizen, so armed, stand a chance against a hypothetical, tyrranical US government with access to bombs, nukes, planes, tanks, et cetera?
The British probably made the same claim about the colonies in the 1700s, but the technologies they were talking about then were "a ragtag bunch of untrained bumpkins" versus a regimented military of hundreds or thousands of men, marching in formation.
Similarly, we Americans (and the others before us) have underestimated the challenges involved with fighting indinginous peoples from Vietnam to Afghanistan.
Planes, tanks, and bombs become much less relevant when you're talking about fighting against a population of 150 - 300 million citizens, each armed with a rifle. The overwhelming manpower and firepower would be enough to give any government pause - the US government in particular because we would already be 'behind their lines' and in prime position to strike at the seat of government.
...The first step on the road to tyrrany is to disarm the public. So long as the public is armed with weapons that they could reasonably use to resist the government (and assault rifles are such weapons), the government must fear - and listen to - its people, because they possess the ability to remove it by force if necessary.
Once the people can no longer remove the government by force, the government is free to oppress as it pleases. Power will remain with the people so long as effective weapons do.
When someone talks about an assault weapons ban, what they're talking about is consolidating power in the hands of government and taking true choice away from the citizenry.
B. Invasion of the homeland -
After WWII, a Japanese Admiral was asked why the Japanese did not simply push east and invade the west coast of the United States after the US fleet was decimated at Pearl Harbor.
The reason that he cited was quagmire that the Japanese would have encountered there. The Japanese knew that American had an armed citizenry, and that every home they passed was a potential gun nest from which snipers and riflemen would be killing their troops. They felt that it would be a waste of resources to invade at that time.
Consequently, countless American lives were probably saved just because their homes had guns in them, and because of our reputation as a gun owning citizenry.
For this reason, armed citizens are an important part of our national defense. The more armed citizens, and the better armed they are, the better.
C. A battle rifle is not the best choice of firearm when considering defense against home invasion. Depending on the context, a handgun or (in some situations) a shotgun would be much more suitable.
However, if you have a breakdown of order (similar to what happened during Hurricane Katrina, or what you might expect in an economic collapse), a battle rifle with detachable high capacity ( 20 - 30 rd.) magazines becomes a much more attractive priority, both because it could defend the home against large groups of roving looters / bands, and because it could be used to effectively defend a family as they travelled to safety across unfamiliar terrain and through unpredictable situations.
---------------------------
....There are drawbacks to every technology. Tens of thousands of people die every year in automobile accidents, and yet few if any are willing to sacrifice the freedom and convenience (and in some cases, life saving service) offered by automobiles.
Similary, firearms are sometimes used irresponsibly, criminally, or in tragic accidents.
Education and familiarity with firearms can help reduce or eliminate irresponsible behavior or tragic accidents.
Criminals will be armed whether law abiding citizens are or not - if you're willing to climb a clock tower and pick off college students, or put a gun to a man's head and demand his wallet, you're not worried in the least about violating gun laws.
Since firearms can be acquired just as easily as narcotics on the black market or made straightforwardly by hand in a machine shop, they will never be out of the hands of criminals. For similar reasons, neither will knives.
The only choice we have before us is how prepared we, the law abiding citizenry, will be when the time comes that we need to defend that which we do not wish to surrender from those who would kill us and take it by force.
Write your legislators, your congressmen, and your president, and contribute to the second amendment group of your choice. Your freedom depends on it.
Let me guess: you're an agnostic but not an atheist?
False. Agnostics seek proof for something that inherently requires faith, and therefore occupy an untenable position.
I read the Sharia law.
oops, reality strikes again.
Then you have a problem with Sharia law as interpreted and delivered by whatever government you're discussing. You do not necessarily have a problem with Islam.
It's called "Iran", not to be confused with the hit song "I Ran" from Flock of Seagulls.
Again, the actions of one rogue state with an insane dictator doesn't condemn the entire Muslim world. In fact, there are masses of people in Iran that have extremely pro-west views.
You need evidence that morals are not universal? Dear god.:
:Greeks were pederasts. There, I win.
Muslims beat women. There I win.:
Cultural pederastry could be amoral by the hypothetical universal standard we're discussing.
There is no reason why a society as a whole couldn't be subject to behaving amorally.
I'm 99.9% sure that this article is about evolutionary psychology which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Evolutionary psychology itself being a pretty iffy field of science which is not backed by any actual evidence, just logic.
It's a pity you didn't actually read the article. You're bright enough to bring some interesting points to light, if only you were to take a look.
So what are they then?:
Pinker talks about possible alternatives, but it seems you're not interested in discussing him.
They're clear to the people they have to be clear to.:
Heh. I wish this were true! I'm not sure they're even clear to the people who wrote them, much less the folks they need to be clear to.
:What? You think they're just sitting around all day trying to make that shit illegible? Well in some cases it might be true ( like for contracts ) but overall, no.
No, I just think most legislation is the product of what a process would look like if you and I got together and tried to write a book together. (Imagine that!)
Lack of morals vs having morals.
Not my morals vs your morals
Side discussion, just for fun. Would you eat a baby? Let's assume you wouldn't ever get caught. Let's assume you aren't starving to death either, so no real justification.
I suppose if you really want to prove your point, you'll type 'Of course! I'm amoral.' Then again, you're also very contrary, and smart enough to see what I'm trying to do. So I'm curious as to how you'll respond, if you do at all.
Of course the majority of losses of religions came from people abandoning them, probably mostly out of laziness.
That one I can agree with.
But funny.:
Yes. But sadly not for the reasons that I suspect you think it is.
Those who don't remember and honor fallen soldiers aren't worth shit in my eyes. That goes for anybody.
When I read this statement, it amazes me that you and I have so little common ground elsewhere.
Actually, we supplied nearly all wartime materials to ourselves and the allies that were used in the war without even fully mobilzing our economy. Effective use of resources? check.
Having massive amounts of resources and using them effectively are not one in the same.
That said, I have no evidence to back up my statement, so I won't continue beating on that drum.
I have only numerous anecdotal observations of government waste and abuse, and my speculations that it's unlikely the bureaucracy would have been any more effective then that it is now.
FDR didn't really want isolation, we did and we needed the wake up call.
FDR =/= the government, though. He does (or did) equal one branch of it, but the "we" you speak of includes Congress...
You're acting like it's you paying for me. Guess what? I'd be paying the same taxes! It's not as though 200 people are going to be singaled out to pay for everyone. We all pay into it, we all benefit from it. :
I would be paying for you. And you would be paying for me. And you and I would be paying for everyone out there who didn't see fit to be responsible and take care of themselves.
Suppose that you eat healthy, you work out every day, you don't smoke, and you take good care of yourself. You get yearly checkups, and when you get older you are prescribed cholesterol medication and an aspirin a day. Because of your conscientious behavior and hard work, your health care losts are very low.
By contrast, I choose to spend my life smoking three packs a day, eating at McDonald's three times a day, and sitting on my butt on the couch collecting welfare checks. When it comes time for my triple bypass, I can't afford it, so UHC steps in and takes care of it.
Now you're liable for a cost I've put on your head that is due chiefly to my own irresponsible behavior. I didn't take care of my body, and now you and the taxpayers are responsible for that.
Heart disease is the # 1 killer in this country, and bad genetics doesn't account for all of it.
This illustration is the underlying truth about what is wrong with socialism.
It would be an absolutely stupendous system, if everybody pulled their own weight. The fact of the matter is, not everyone does pull their own weight. In fact, there is a huge segment of the population that votes for socialism precisley because they DON'T want to pull their own weight - they want a free ride.
And so, they few who are willing to work are plowed under by the apathetic, lazy masses.
:From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.:
Where is the incentive to excel, if there is not cost to failure?
Quit referring only to yourself, really. You act as though you have to pay for everyone. We all pay into it, we all benefit.
Again, I do. And so do you. Government spending is not 'play money' - it's real money. Every single dollar has to be paid by someone. And we won't all benefit.
Those who do not work, do not invest effort, do not try, and do not take care of themselves will benefit. Something for nothing.
Those who struggle, who work.. they will pay the price.
Even if they have healthcare, companies will still try to deny their claim.:
Then they should pay for it themselves.
Yet charities, donations etc. still don't cover it all.:
Then more people need to set up charities. Perhaps the government should subsidize or provide start-up funding for private charities. But it should not get into the business of health care.
:And since it's the governments job to provide for it's citizens, how can you say healthcare doesn't fall in that category?
I cannot express strongly enough the degree to which I disagree with the premise of that statement.
It is NOT the government's job to provide for its citizens.
It is NO ONE'S job to provide for you but yours. YOU and repsonsible for YOU. The GOVERNMENT is not responsible for you.
Why should it be? Who ever said it had to be? That idea exists nowhere in the founding documents.
The government's job is to keep us from getting killed - by each other and by foreign governments. We should be free to be alive, to be free, and to PURSUE happiness.
But we are responsible for SUSTAINING our own lives, DEFENDING our own freedom, and PURSUING our own happiness through hard work and discipline.
Life is hard. If you don't earn food, you starve. If you don't pay for your freedom in blood, you will be enslaved. If you don't go out there and try to get that which makes you happy, then you won't be happy.
Government can't, won't, and shouldn't try to change that.
Once again, the government should provide for it's citizens.
Absolutely not.
You're acting like tens of millions of people will just milk the system. People who actually do this are a very small minority.
Of course they will. In fact, under UHC they'll be obligated to milk the system.
Look at the state of the welfare system.
Fine, Americans could use a little incentive to get in shape. Besides, they do it with OUR tax dollars, not the gold reserves or some shit.
Are you kidding? You believe the government should have the right to tell you what to do with your body? (Aside from not using it to harm others, that is.)
The pop. keeps growing = more taxpayers = more money for the gov. to play use
Not in a welfare state. Larger populations =/= more taxpayers - in fact the recent stimulus bill is providing 'tax refunds' to lots of people people who didn't actually pay in.
Octuplet Mom is a good example - if I recall correctly she was on welfare before the octuplets. What are the odds those eight kids will learn something from Mom's pattern of behavior?
How do you suggest my 83 yearold grandfather pay for several months of kemo and radiation?
He has several options:
1. His pension.
2. His savings.
3. His grandchild. [What? You don't think you should have to pay for someone else's health care? Get used to it, if you endorse UHC! Imagine having a hundred million grandfathers to pay for!]
You're just spinning in circles like some mad dynamo trying to jump around the incredibly obvious fact that IT'S DOWNRIGHT STUPID TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT YOUR LIFE BASED ON THINGS YOU ADMIT HAVING NO EVIDENCE FOR.
Where is your evidence? Where is your evidence for the claim that all religion is false and misguided? (There is no evidence, because you can't prove a negative.) Where is the evidence to back up your openly anti-Muslim sentiment? How do you justify condemning a faith for the actions of a few extreme individuals? On what grounds?
It wouldn't cut the mustard for anything EXCEPT RELIGION and you're just sitting there in your comfortable chair with your politically correct apologetic "why can't we all get along" mentality while muslims are building nukes to gain political clout and try and impose their medieval laws on as many people as they possibly can.:
Are Muslims building the nukes? Do the Muslims get together and have a secret Muslim meeting about the nukes? At the mosque, perhaps? Or are rogue states building nukes?
And if you're going to condemn a nation for building nuclear weapons and imposing their will on others, logic would seem to dictate you must have a rather dim view of the US, no?
After all, we are the only nation to have ever used nuclear weaponry against civilians - hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1. Morals are opinions. They are not universal despite what your 4th grade teacher might have told you.
Evidence? Support? My statements are based on Stephen Pinker's 1/13/2008 Article, "The Moral Instinct" in The New York Times. Here is Pinker's web address, should you be interested in his credentials: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/
A Harvard professor of psychology is a bit better than a fourth grade teacher in your book, isn't he? After all, you've been howling about the stupidity of clinging to beliefs without support - where is your support?
2. You can't attack someone's morals because you've already accepted that they're fucking opinions.
What? When did I do that? I'm frankly not clear on whether morals are opinions or not. I don't know enough about the topic.
3. When two people with different morals meet, they are fucked because neither can reason with the other.
You and I seem to be reasoning. You said you have no morals whatsoever - I said that I do. We've been reasoning for pages.
What is a law? A law is a set or rules agreed upon by everyone in the hopes of making a society better to live in. They are written down CLEARLY and CAN BE CHANGED and DISCUSSED.
Have you ever actually tried to read through statutes? They are a lot of things - but they are not clear. If the law was clear, judges wouldn't be quite so important. As it is, we need a litany of judicial staff just to understand what the law says - and even then, sometimes they seem to get it wrong. Laws are not nearly so objective as you and I might hope.
Morals cannot be discussed.:
What have you and I been up to, then?
The only way to change someone's morals is by force or by making them realize that what they're doing as a result of their moral code is extremely stupid and detrimental to themselves.
I thought you said that people have been getting converted for centuries. Converted away from their religions - and, presumably, the underlying moral codes of those faiths.
I DO NOT HAVE MORALS.
I refuse the concept.:
You can be dishonest with me. You cannot be dishonest with yourself.
What does that mean? That means I don't use arguments like "he's evil", "it's bad", "we should do the right thing" because THOSE ARE BOGUS. They're opinions.
You'll find that life is not so cut and dry as we might like it to be - nearly everything is colored by perception and subject to opinion.
I live in the world where I want my decisions to be influenced by DATA and FACTS, not people's opinions that they got from a book they think Jesus's friend wrote.
Some of what is contained in those books are data, and do represent facts. Some of them must be viewed in their historical contexts, others were never appropriate, and many are timeless truths that ring across the millenia.
Despite the fact that much of it comprises what you might call the mad ramblings of dusty old patriarchs, there is wisdom there if you care to look. Not everywhere, mind you - but be sure not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Anyone who thinks everyone agrees on morals and should follow theirs sends a red flag up with "I'm a moron, kick me" in bold neon letters written on it.:
You're very quick to accuse other people of being stupid. It's unfortunate for you.
Faith is ACCEPTING SOMETHING WITHOUT EVIDENCE.:
And that is BAD. That is FUNDAMENTALLY BAD.
You disagree with the notion of accepting an idea with evidence - and I'm fine with that at this point.
You haven't dealt with the fact that faith and religion have made tremendous contributions to our societies. Myriad charities operate day in and day out working to better the lives of other people. They save lives, they provide care and comfort, and they help folks get back on their feet.
They do it because they have an irrational belief, with no evidence to base it on whatsoever, that there is a benevolent force in this world that wants them to extend a helping hand to those in need.
Who says they're not? I can't make a law to force them to stop believing things. But why the hell should I not challenge them?
You should, but challenging is the easy part. It's easy to attack, to question, and to challenge. Trying to see things from the other person's point of view and understand what motivates them - now that's tough.
Who would go "well maybe it's a good idea to base decisions on that".
Several billion people, apparently. Most of whom do not harm to anyone, and a very few of whom are either very helpful or very harmful.
Yeah well obviously you can thrive economically no matter what you do.
But I should have specified: socially.
I've answered your demand, so you've redefined it. But we have to acknowledge that faith is not detrimenetal, apparently, to economic success, insofar as it hasn't prevented the US from ascending to a leading position in the global economy.
Social progress and success is subjective, tough to define, and individual.
As an example of social progress derived from or related to faith, I respectfully submit the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Many of his speeches were given from church pulpits, many of the people who participated in the civil rights movement were church congregants, and his message had a powerful spiritual component.
I would argue that faith hasn't hindered social progress one bit. Furthermore, I advance the notion that we see in the modern day two correlating trends (though correlation does not imply causation) - our society is becoming increasingly secular, and at the same time the public opinion seems to be that we are in moral decline.
Look at how mass media (television in particular) has changed over the last fifty years, for example. In the 1950's, Ozzy and Harriet, a married couple, slept in seperate beds in their bedroom.
Fast forward to present day, where we have TV shows called "Dirty Sexy Money" and sex and violence equal ratings.
I'm not sure that the decline of religion in the popular consciousness is a cause, but I don't think it's helped.
Most faith-strong nations are BACKWARDS SHITHOLES.
In the absence of scientific or social progress, people become superstitious and turn to religion to explain the world around them.
I think the correct interpretation is, most backward nations are also faith-strong.
However, it does not follow that a faith strong nation must be backward - again, consider the US from 1900 until the 1950's.
No, I don't have morals. I just guessed yours.
Now you're just being contrary. Earlier you were espousing belief in the rule of law - now you're saying you don't have morals.
Know thyself.
And you glossed over the important point: what do you do when people with insane morals start doing crazy things because you've pumped them up all their lives with shitty pep-talk about "acting morally" ?:
If they understood morality properly, they wouldn't be doing crazy things. "Insane morals" represents an oxymoron to my way of thinking.
If you're talking about oppressive morality (such as in extreme examples of Sharia law), I'd argue that they have deviated from what most would define as "moral behavior".
Appropriating morality in order to commit atrocity is, in and of itself, an amoral act.
You need laws.
What's that about you being amoral, again?
Just read their insane laws and you'll understand REALLY FAST why you don't want that kind of person using your lame arguments against YOUR community.
Who is 'they'? Many Muslims view the directives in the Koran within their historical context, and don't interpret them in the same oppressive fashion as extremist Sharia law states do.
1. Bob believe that there is a book WRITTEN BY THE CREATOR OF THE FUCKING UNIVERSE, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK ON THE PLANET, NO, THE UNIVERSE. That is what bob believes. Bob doesn't read the book.
Bob sounds like a straw man.
2. Therefore BOB IS A FUCKING RETARD.
And a straw man.
3. We shouldn't listen to retards.
Or straw men.
The End.
That's pretty damn simple and you'd need to be a pretty CLOSE-MINDED person to deny it. I hope you're not CLOSE-MINDED.
I don't like making ad hominem attacks, and I'll try to refrain from it here.
I find an amusing irony that over the course of several posts, you have made knee-jerk statements, finished them off with "The End.", and ultimately concluded by backhandedly pointing a finger at me and calling me closed minded.
Overconfidence is a weakness. You're a smart young person, but don't make the assumption that your truth is absolute or that your perceptions are inviolable. It's unbecoming.
They're the ones who read fairy tales from a dusty old book, if they do read them.
Those dusty books contain a lot of problematic material, that much is true - but I think it would be foolish to offhandedly ignore centuries of accumulated human meditation on morality.
Those texts contain a great deal of wisdom. It would be worth anyone's time - regardless of faith - to be familiar with religious texts. There are common themes and moral truths encoded therein that should be heeded.
A sorting process has to take place, of course, because some of it is worthless.
I also suggest a read of Plato's "Republic".
... nowhere does it rule out evolution or many scientific concepts in the slightest.:
Agreed. Science and faith are not incompatible in the least.
So even if I believed in it I would see nothing that says I can't be a man or science and God at the same time.
Agreed. That's why faith is not a threat to scientific progress.
... anyone who calls me ignorant because I believe in firmly grounded scientific theory can eat a dick.
Who are you angry at? No one here has called you ignorant because you believe in science.
One might deem science as the polar opposite of religion but at least science doesn't give me pretentious advice, criticize me on my faults, nor force me to do a mindless activity to brainwash me.:
One role of scientists (among many) is to provide advice to society about how our actions might impact the natural world, and how the natural world might impact us. This is why you hear a lot of scientists hollering about global warming, carbon emissions, et cetera. So they do actually give advice - and some of it is probably pretentious.
Science and faith both also rely heavily on constructive criticism. Science doesn't criticize you on your faults because you're not a scientist - if you were, your life would be a constant process of criticism, acceptance, and revision.
Faith is similar, but the constructive criticism is constructive criticism of a moral sort. By delineating what is and is not moral, religion will tend to criticize all of those behaviors in you that it sees as being immoral. The good news is, if your morals aren't in line with those of your faith, you are free to choose a different faith - or no faith at all.
And if religion brainwashes you, it has apparently done a fairly poor job in your case, has it not?
Humans are rational. They are biological machines. You do things for a reason.
Humans are also capable of irrational behavior - of doing things without any specific, articulable reason. Faith is one example of such behavior. You can get Freudian and argue that a person's choice of faith is governed largely by his or her past experience. You can even get scientific and start digging around for alleles that predispose one to faith.
Ultimately, though, if you ask a religious person why they believe as they do, they aren't going to be able to provide any concrete evidence to support their beliefs. This is why faith is required.
Belief in something in the absence of any proof whatsoever is irrational - but not inherently bad.
I'm not talking about "all things rational/irrational", I'm talking about the behavior of holding onto an idea "irrationally" ( i.e. for reasons other than "is this true?").
What, in specific, is bad about the irrational belief in something larger than yourself?
Granted, many concepts, religion included, have been appropriated for use by terrible people throughout history. Hitler, for example, appropriated concepts ranging from government to genetics to promulgate his insane ideas related to eugenics and ethnic cleansing. His acts were atrocities - but they don't mean that we should jettison the notions of government and genetics just because a terrible person used them as tools once.
Similarly, religion is a tool. It can accomplish tremendous good, and it can accomplish terrible harm. Ultimately, the question at the root of this discussion is, perhaps, whether religion causes more harm than good. The reason we keep going round and round is that it's difficult to establish proof or make a strong case for one side or the other - numerous examples exist of harm, and numerous examples exist of good.
The examples of harm do tend to stick more prominently in the mind (the crusades, the Salem witch trials, et cetera), and I'll grant you that. But notoriety is a different thing from cost/benefit.
That is insanely dangerous in all matters, not just religion.
Thought is dangerous? Why can't people be free to believe as they wish? Would you seek to ban religious thought? What other sorts of thought do you find threatening?
The very concept of faith is inherently bad for a society.
Would the Salvation Army agree with this statement? What about charities such as Christ for Humanity? The Agape Foundation? The National Christian Foundation? The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee? How about all of the faith-based churches, sanctuaries, and homeless shelters that keep thousands of homeless from freezing or starving to death every winter?
Well please explain to me how a society thrives when people hold the idea that "You can act upon things as if they were facts even though you have 0 evidence to support them, and that's great".
Look at the history of the United States of America. The secular trend we're in now is a fairly recent thing. I'm not saying it's a terrible thing by any means, but I will say that we have become one of the most successful nations in the world, and have a fairly strong foundation in the Abrahamic faiths.
I'm only providing this example because you've asked for me to explain how a society thrives when people hold to religious ideals - I think we've done alright for ourselves thus far.
No one gives a shit about behaving morally.
You may not, but do not project your lack of morals onto the rest of society. Plenty of folks care about behaving morally. Some, due to their faith. Others, because they hold themselves to a high moral standard. We're not all degenerates.
At any rate, morals are just opinions. Some people think it's immoral to NOT beat your wife. You really want to tell those people "good thing you have faith to keep you moral!"?
It depends on the faith, on the person, and on their interpretation. There is some commonly shared moral perspective, however - consider that you assumed I would recoil at the notion of spouse abuse. You assumed there that you and I share some basic moral precepts - precepts which I would argue may in fact be fairly universal.
There are two schools of thought on morals. One argues that morals are a fabrication of society - and you seem to fall in line with this school of thought. Another school of thought argues that morals exist like mathematics - as extant, discoverable 'laws' that can be arrived at from different approaches but which ultimately serve as some sort of universal foundation.
I'm as skeptical of the second approach as your are. Then again, I'd be skeptical of 'discoverable mathematics' if I hadn't observed examples.
No, sorry, Islam would undo all the social progress we have made in the last 100 years. It's as simple as that. Read their insane laws and you'll understand really fast just how dangerous these people are.
So you're of the opinion that there are absolutely no Muslims who have any interest in progress, socially or scientifically, whatsoever? Do you believe that every Muslim carries around a saber under their clothing, just waiting for an infidel to turn his back so that they can rack up one more decapitation for Allah?
There are plenty of progressive Muslims out there, who advocate social equality, civil rights, and peace. The Muslim community is just as diverse as the Christian community, or the Jewish communities. Like those communities, the Muslim community also has its extremists.
Yeah because they're idiots. I'd wager that 99.99% of Christians have not read the bible from cover to cover. Easy. Yet they have the balls to not believe in evolution or ever use the word "ignorant". Holy shit.:
It's fairly easy to construct a straw man out of the "Christian world" and start chopping away at it. Don't mistake misanthropy for anti-religious sentiment. People in general have a bad habit of closed-mindedness, knee-jerk reactions, and making snap judgements without reviewing the details. Christians are people, so they're prone to all of those things. That says more about people, however, than it does about faith.
Congratulations. You've done very well for yourself - you're ready to learn the secret.
Any moron can get A's in a government school these days. The reason you do better than your peers is because they are not disciplined, not motivated, and lack the drive to succeed.
As your life goes on, you will be surrounded by more and more people who are disciplined, who are motivated, and who do have the drive to succeed. Competition will get stiffer - but this will only inspire you to rise to the challenge.
Right now, your task is not to get all A's - that's a given. That's the floor. That's the basement.
Grades don't matter once they've gotten you into college. What does matter is what you keep between your ears.
Get everything you possibly can out of every single class that you take.
That goes double for statistics - it's highly applicable in many fields, including two others you're already taking classes in - Biology and Economics.
When you go to college, you'll hear a bunch of stuff about "Do what you enjoy" and such. Here's the second secret - most of that is crap being spouted by people who are insecure with their position in life.
Look seriously at all available majors. Look seriously at the occupational outlook handbook. Think about where you want to be in ten years.
Consider either a business major or a business minor, no matter what it is that you choose to do.
The reason?
Think about all the places in your home town where a Biology major (or an MD if that's where you're headed) could work. You've probably come up with a hospital and maybe a University if there is one in town.
Now, think about all the places in town where someone with a business degree (management, business, or accounting) could get a job and be pulling down eighty grand within five years. Think about how many possible jobs you could work in with such a degree. You're bound to find something you enjoy.
.... Good luck.
If you're ready to end the relationship, end it.
If you're not ready to end the relationship, don't end it.
The date is irrelevant - if it needs to end, it needs to end.
But don't play games with her and make her think she can win you back by doing cartwheels. You don't want her to walk away thinking she didn't do the right 'trick' to earn your affection.
Respect her enough to give her a clean break and just cut her loose. Call her up, apologize for playing games, and tell her you wish her well and she should enjoy single life.
The sentiment is appreciated, but the two acts are way out of proportion to one another.
You're contemplating chopping off your thumb and middle finger to protest the practice of lopping of the male's index fingertip. (In other words, one act destroys the functional effectiveness of the entire organ - the other reduces sensation, but isn't nearly so detrimental).
If you want to protest male circumcision, get educated on the topic (as I'm sure you have) and spread the word. There is a lot of misinformation about it out there.
Chopping yourself up won't do anyone any good.
Such as we've won every war but Vitnam. Such as building the suburbs. Such as having one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Have we? I think the outcome of AWOT is still left to be determined.
At any rate, the fact that we won the wars does not mean that we fought them well, nor does it mean that the government effectively managed its resources.
It does mean that the US had tremendous advantages in terms of resources, allies, and military leadership. (In WWII, for instance, Germany was hamstrung because Hitler was an insane egomaniac who interfered far too much with his generals.)
It does mean that we had good soldiers willing to pay the ultimate price for the freedoms we all enjoy - but their sacrifice is something that is slowly being forgotten in the modern age of government dependency.
But it does not mean that the government did a good job administering the wars.
We nearly got plowed under, actually, in WWII, because of the government's policy of isolation. They were happy to sit on their hands and let Europe appease half of itself away before anyone woke up and realized we needed to deal with the issue.
By that time, Germany was much more formidable than it would have been otherwise.
Supposedly I am. But am I really if health care companies can deny me a claim?
Then you pay for your health care! It isn't someone else's responsibility to pay for your health care - it's your responsibility. Yes, even if it's really, really expensive. It's still your responsibility. Yes! Even if you need it to live! It's still your responsibility.
A mercedes is really expensive. It's still your responsibility to buy it. Food is really expensive. It's still you responsibility to go out and get it. Health care is no different.
Why in the world would it be someone else's job to pay for your health care?
Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives. That's Robert A. Heinlein's quote, and it's an awful truth.
When the government does something, make no mistake - its authority is backed up by men with guns. If I refuse to pay my taxes, eventually, men with guns will show up to take me away. If I resist them, they will beat me, and if they have to, they will kill me.
When you endorse Universal Health Care, what you are effectively doing is authorizing men with guns to come to my house and take my money to pay for your health care. This is true of any social program. The men with guns don't come in actuality of course - but only because I pay so they don't have to.
Tell me how a low income family has a hope of raising enough money if the primary wage earner develops cancer and the health insurance company claims it's a "pre-existing condition".
Hopefully, the primary wage earner has had two jobs throughout the early part of his or her productive life, or has gotten an education and has been pulling down a sufficient salary so that he or she can afford either the right health care or the appropriate level of coverage.
If not, then it sounds like the spouse or the kids need to get out and work to feed the family and pay for the health care if necessary. That's how it happened in my family.
I'm sure now you'll want to bring up the hypothetical single wage earner, 18 years of age with no spouse, no kids, two dead parents, and cancer.
...This is why private individuals are free to set up charities, collect donations, and establish benefit funds. It happens all the time. I'm not saying these folks shouldn't be taken care of - only that it isn't the government's job!
No, it doesn't suugest that in any way. How does it suggest that when it states we're below nearly every country with UHC in life expectancy, when they spend less than us as a percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product)? and yes, the government sucks at it at present. After all, our current healthcare system was instituted by Nixon. So, that says to me that we need to reform it.
- We spend MORE than they do as a percent of the GDP.
- Our health care is WORSE.
More government spending =/= better health care.
We need to model a UHC system for us after a country with such a system that is successful, like Canada or Britain.
Again, I don't see people crossing the border into Canada for surgery. It happens the other way around.
Fine, we need to help those who can't afford it to pay for it, :
Charities do. Not the government.
:.. and if we do it right we'll spend less on healthcare than we do now, meaning less taxes for individuals, more income for business and no paying premiums to healthcare companies, money for everybody.:
How will we spend less money than we do now by absorbing the cost of so many additional procedures for people who can't or won't get jobs to pay for them?
Through government mandated preventative medicine? After all, once the government must pay for your health care, they do have a say in how you take care of your body.
And even if it does raise taxes, which I doubt, you can afford it because you no longer have to pay health premiums and companies don't have to pay for employees health care, more money for them.
Except now you're paying for everyone's health care + the markup (because it's a government monopoly), so you're laying out more taxes. Taxes that will never, ever go down, because the population keeps growing and people will never vote for a candidate who wants to weaken Universal Health Care once it's established.
As well, you keep suggesting there are horrible waits for surgey only in countries with UHC. Guess what? They're here to. I've had friends and family members succumb to cancer while fighting with the insurance company to pay for their surgery, which had they paid for themselves, would have drained their entire life savings. And I mean that literally.
So they died rather than drain their life savings? Hm. Not the choice I would have made. Either way, it wasn't the government's job to pay for their health care - it was theirs.
We can make it free to all of our citizens, increase the quality of care, and spend less money than we are now. Win, win, win.:
- It won't be free, you'll pay for it in your taxes, through the nose, because it'll be a government monopoly and people will work the system for all it's worth just like they do the welfare system. Exponential population growth (Been watching the news? Seen octuplet lady?) means it will only get worth.
- The quality of care won't increase. Take the capitalism out of the system and there is less incentive for Hospitals to compete with one another - all are guaranteed business through patient assignment systems that function like HMOs, only worse. Without the drive to provide the best service for their patients (and thus, attract business) standards of service - and care - will get lax.
- We'll spend more money than we are now, because the government will take on the responsibility of managing the entire health care system. That means millions of dollars per year worth of funding government employees to do oversight work alone, and that's only scratching the surface.
..... People are so incredibly willing to hand over their independence so that they can be taken care of by the government. It's terrifying.
Well: are they right? No.
That's a good start.:
You have no idea whether they are correct or not. You may believe that they are wrong, but you're going to find it extremely difficult to prove a negative.
It seems pretty rational to me.
How so?
And the very fact that it makes believers "irrationally" hold on to an idea should clue you in that it's dangerous and unhealthy.
Not all irrational things are dangerous or unhealthy. Fear is not rational, but it can be extremely useful. Love is not rational, but people all over the world experience it and accomplish great things because of it.
It's only happened millions of times...
Have at it, brother. Go to town.
The very concept of faith is inherently bad for a society.
You have no idea whether this is true.
Because we have laws.
People obey laws to the letter, not to the spirit.
They will behave lawfully so long as they fear getting caught and are not willing to suffer the consequences of getting caught.
In order to behave morally, I argue that some people need more support.
Oh really? Does it look like Islam would make the world a better place? Does it seem like promoting science over pseudoscience could have any benefits? WHO CAN TELL?:
It depends on the context and the interpretation applied to it by the adherents.
A vast number of charities out there are religiously based, and missionaries do a lot of work to bring food and medicine to impoverished people in third world countries. People of faith go out of their way to assist others all of the time.
Within any group, you will find examples of extremists and terrible people. For example, there are murderers and child rapers living here in the US. Does that make my a terrible person for being a US citizen? Nope.
People of faith aren't terrible people just because they have faith - no matter how twisted some zealots can be.
Saying it's great to believe is just begging to promote mass ignorance, scientific slowdowns and insane politics.:
Science seems to be progressing just fine in the current climate, and there is plenty of religion out there.
You can call people of faith ignorant all you want - they are likely to be saying the same about you.
:Resisting a verbal command by noncompliance is stupid. You shouldn't be executed for simple disobedience, however. :
Tasering =/= execution.
Between 2000 and 2004, there were 70 TASER associated deaths nationwide in the US. A vast majority of those involved people who were on enough amphetamine and cocaine to bring down a horse, and the discussion is open as to whether they were done already and the TASER just let them know it.
Even so, I'd say given a national population of three hundred million and hundreds of TASERS in use in departments nationwide every single day, 70 deaths in 4 years is remarkably low.
Compare this with the number of officers and citizens who would have ended up shot or stabbed had the TASER not been an option, and I'd be willing to wager the TASER deaths figure would be lower.
:A 350 lb suspect disobeying commands to "get down" for whatever reason, fine, taze him. You couldn't restrain Cowboys OL Larry Allen with two officers. Sometimes it's necessary. It usually isn't.:
Outstanding. You and I are in agreement. There are times when a TASER is a reasonable tool necessary to restrain a perpetrator and keep the officers and the suspect from harm!
The only discussion remaining is under what circumstances the TASER should be used and when it should be available to officers.
For those factors, I think we should leave it up to the professionals - the officers who are in those situations each and every day.
:Don't murder someone because you and three other officers couldn't figure out how to subdue a single non-violent citizen.:
TASER =/= murder.
:Fucking crack the guys ribs, don't fry his organs and widow his family. Fucking shoot him if you have to, mace him if you have to, gangwhoop the shit out of him if you have to.:
When it functions correctly, the TASER results in less harm to the suspect and to the officers than cracking ribs, using firearms, or 'gangwhooping' the suspect.
OC spray has its place, but if the suspect is drugged or resistant, you're back to the same old problem.
:Of all the deaths caused by tazers, how many could've been avoided with a little MORE police discretion? How many do you need to quantify the use of tazers over other methods of less-lethal weaponry?:
One could make the same argument about firearms.
"If it saves even one life.."
There are plenty of cases where police officers have shot people to death without proper justification. If officers didn't carry firearms, doubtless those deaths wouldn't have happened.
On the other hand, if officers didn't carry firearms, then thousands upon thousands more officers and innocent citizens would be murdered every year.
It's not the set of bad things that happen as a result of the technology that is the deterministic factor.
It is the ratio of bad outcomes (measurable) to the ratio of prevented bad outcomes (much more difficult to measure).
:Do you have statistics on the relative rate of death and serious injury with TASER use versus rate of death and serious injury by police dogpile?:
Nah. I'm posting on a web forum, mate. I'm not going to go digging around right now. It's "I say, you say" until you dig up some stats. Then maybe I'll find some of my own. (And we'll be back to square one).
:I have a heart condition. I know people who use alcohol.
If you are morally correct in tazing someone, would you be morally upright by shooting them with your sidearm in the same scenario? If you can't answer yes, why not?
Then I suggest you and your friends don't do anything to get TASED. You might die.
It's a matter of the probability of death. TASERS are classified as "less lethal" because the probability of death is much, much lower than with the use of firearms.
Because the risk to the target's life is greater when using a firearm on them, there is a greater standard of care than there is with a TASER.
Nothing is cut and dry. You can attempt to restrain a man in a restraint hold and his body composition can be just such that the carotid artery shears as you twist his neck this way or that, or maybe he has a heart condition and has a heart attack as you try to apprehend him. Does that mean you should have just shot him?
Of course not. You can never predict precisely what will happen when you engage a suspect, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have police out there, or that the police shouldn't have all the tools available to them to allow them to get home at the end of the day.
There are a few bad eggs in law enforcement, just like any job. For the most part though, if you do what the nice officer says, you aren't going to get tased.
People who get TASED typically end up in that situation because they were being combative or noncooperative - a foolish choice to begin with. It doesn't mean they deserve to die by any means, but it does mean that TASER death is unlikely to befall the average innocent law abiding citizen.
If a police officer asks me to do something, unless it's something obviously horribly (bash that baby in the head with this rock), I'm going to do it. I can sort out my grievances with the judge later.
:Cops aren't stupid, but then again, citizens don't murder each other using methods currently under scrutiny as an unconstitutional form of execution.:
Saying TASER is the same as the electric chair is like saying I tried to kill you by rubbing my feet on the carpet and giving you a static shock. Electricity is involved in each situation, but the probability of death is orders of magnitude different.
...So.. this Backlund guy..
"ST. PAUL - Authorities have identified a Fridley man who died following an incident on I-694 involving Minnesota State Patrol troopers during the Tuesday evening rush hour in New Brighton as Mark C. Backlund, age 29, of Fridley.:
I found another article.
http://wcco.com/local/taser.death.minnes ota.2.719111.html
Here are some highlights:
:Peterson said Backlund punched one of the deputies right before he was shocked by the Taser, just as authorities and witnesses say he did..:
:Moments later video from a Taser-mounted camera shows Backlund inside his car reaching towards the ignition as if he was trying to leave the scene. A second Taser not equipped with a camera was deployed, but Sgt. Jason Bartell, a State Patrol force instructor, said the connection was bad and it had no effect on Backlund.
"What's running through their minds is that there are witnesses in front of the vehicle, it's approximately (5 p.m. during) rush hour," Peterson said, explaining that the troopers were trying to prevent Backlund from driving away.
:An autopsy released last month said Backlund had cocaine in his system as well as several prescription drugs. The Ramsey County Attorney's office cleared the troopers of any misconduct after reviewing an outside investigation by the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
So, in summary -
The guy tried to hit a cop in the mouth. Then he tried to get away - putting innocent lives at risk. He did this because he was high on cocaine and prescription drugs.
Any questions?
:Police fucked up, one story of many. Tazers enabled their incompetent behavior and predisposition for the sadistic.:
Not in the Backlund case you listed. TASER use was appropriate, and at the point that he was putting lives in jeopardy with his vehicle, they probably could have used firearms.
:Tazers are lethal weapons, that are deployed in non-life threatening scenarios.:
No, they aren't.
:If you're seriously trying to take this angle in debate, you should check the case law where a cop is considered a professional in determining sobreity. Don't believe me? I wouldn't either, I'm just a lazy drunk.:
Sobriety for driving during a roadside test, yes. High in public, and on what, and for what reasons, under stress, during combat? No.
:I gotta ask, have you been trained for law enforcement?:
Irrelevant.
Well, so long as you're talking about the U.S., then yes.
Such as?
I'd prefer them to the health care companies.
Health care companies aren't in charge of your health care. You are.
They may have to wait for some surgery but I'd say that it's a hell of lot better than having a health care company tell you removing your half dollar sized brain tumor is "non-lethal and not medically necesary".
Under the current system, at least you have the hope of earning or raising enough money to pay for the procedure yourself if your health insurance won't cover it.
No, here in the U.S. we spend more as a percent of the GDP then most countries with Universal health care, and we're 46th for life expectancy. So how you can say we'll spend more with Universal Health Care than we do with our current privatized system is beyond me.
Your first point in that paragraph suggests Universal Health Care is a bad idea, and that the government isn't good at it any way. I agree.
Under the privatized system, consumers are absorbing part of the cost. Under UHC, the government absorbs the costs and redistributes those costs to the tax payers, which means if I have an eight million dollar medical procedure (and manage to live long enough to get it under UHC), you are on the hook for helping to pay for that.
And my cry goes out for "If you don't institute Universal Health Care, our deeply flawed system will kill more people than it already has!". As well, a little less capitalism in the U.S. would be for the better.:
Again, at present, people travel from all over the world to get health care here. They come from nations with UHC. There is a reason for this.
Think.
Have you ever seen the government do anything -well-?
Do you want a government in charge of your health care?
There are two ways to pay for health care - time and money. If money is not used, then time will be used. Canada and other nations with socialized health care have four month waits for operations as important as brain surgery - people frequently come to the states to get surgery because it's the only way they have a shot of surviving.
Furthermore, once universal health care is instituted, tax cuts will largely become a thing of the past. Any time anyone tries to decrease the size of government or cut taxes, the cry will go out that Health care will suffer. "Cut taxes and people will die!" ...This will lead to a continuous slide toward a less and less capitalist society.
Giving money to panhandlers is a terrible idea for the following reasons:
1. Interacting with people you don't know is not a safe thing to do. The panhandler could be distracting you while his buddy sneaks up behind you to mug you, or he could be setting you up for a mugging himself. When approached, disengage as quickly as possible and always be aware of your surroundings.
2. Some panhandlers are not homeless. They live in a house, and panhandling is what they do for a living. You can apparently make good money at it. In these cases, the money is not going to someone who is truly needy.
3. Many homeless people suffer from mental illness or substance abuse problems. By giving them money, you could be causing them harm by providing them access to illicit substances or making them a target for others who might seek to mug them. An addict will always prioritize feeding the addiction - and you want to feed the homeless, not their addictions.
...If you are approached on the street by a panhandler, keep your eyes peeled, politely decline, and get away as quickly as possible.
If you want to help those in need, then do a google search for homeless shelters or charities in the area. Volunteer your time there, or at a soup kitchen, or donate to these services. They will make sure to provide services - beds, blankets, and food to the homeless. You'll be doing a good thing and you'll know your money or time is being used for good.
At 2/14/09 02:22 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Violent =/= uncooperative.
This is true. However, if an individual is resisting (the most common use of the TASER), then the officer has to go hands on in some capacity.
Meaning that if we're not using the taser, we're talking about police batons, joint locks, hard hand strikes, restraint holds, joint strikes, and groups of officers wrestling a person to the ground. Joint, spinal, and head injury are all very real possibilities - the suspect could be crippled or killed.
Do you have statistics on the relative rate of death and serious injury with TASER use versus rate of death and serious injury by police dogpile?
TASER deaths are well publicized, but they are few and far between. Most of those that do occur involve individuals who are resisting arrest AND are under the influence of a stimulant or narcotic, or have a heart condition.
If you have a heart condition, I respectfully submit that cooperating with the police is a good idea.
Four cops tasered a man to death after his car broke down in traffic. No violent history, no violent conduct, just disobedience. Four cops, one distressed motorist, one corpse by the end of the show and a widowed family.
What were the circumstances? What condition was the man in? What did he do? Did the cops percieve a threat to themselves, the man, or other motorists?
For example, was the man about to run out into moving traffic, endangering himselves and the lives of innocent people?
Did he make a quick movement toward his pocket, glove box, or jacket, consistent with the motion of drawing a firearm? If so, use of the TASER would represent remarkable restraint on the part of the officers.
I need more information before passing judgement.
Did the Rodney King videotape just click off everyone's common sense? Give cops the option to carry either a gun or taser, one or the other, and instruct them to use in life-threatening scenarios only.
The firearm and the TASER are both tools, and they have application in very different situations. The TASER is used for incapacitating violent individuals while minimizing harm to them and to the resonding officers, and is appropriate in situations where lethal force is not justified, because the TASER is much less lethal than a handgun.
For example, police respond to a naked man pacing in an agitated fashion in his front yard, holding a knife. He is not currently being aggressive or threatening with the knife, but keeps stating he may harm himself. {This happens more often than you might think.)
Shooting this man is probably not justified (he has not demonstrated intent to harm others, and shooting him to prevent suicide seems foolish). However, a TASER could incapacitate him long enough for the officers to take him into custody, without risking their lives by trying to grapple with a man armed with a knife.
....Conversely, if the man was running down the street shooting innocent people, this would be a situation that would call for firearms.
TASERS used on citizens under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs by officers of the law that result in death should be jury tried as manslaughter. Cops are supposed to be able to determine if someone's doped out, and sending 150k through their system for non-violent offenses SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Cops are "supposed to be able to determine.."? According to whom? Using what set of skills or devices?
Police officers are given a short list of indicators to look for, and acquire knowledge of other indicators over years of experience on the street, but it's not a perfect system. There is no way to determine for sure what someone is on.
Symptoms of drug abuse can range from nothing, to agitated behavior, to bloodshot eyes, to dialated or constricted pupils, to elevated heart rate (how do you measure that from across a room?) and heavy breathing, to paranoia, to a million other things.
ALL of these symptoms can also happen in someone who is just extremely upset, or who is mentally ill. Do you expect the officers to make unimpeachable calls on what is in a man's blood stream based on observation alone, from across a room in the middle of a high stress situation?
As far as 150k volts... I've taken 100k from a stun gun myself. It tingled and felt like a pinch. 150k sounds impressive, but it is the amperage that is lethal - not the voltage.
It's cruel and unsual, like carrying a mini-electric chair in your pocket to play judge and jury with.:
Propose a more effective alternative with lower casualty rates.
At 2/14/09 02:15 PM, poxpower wrote:
Why would I NOT want other people to be converted to my own way of thinking? It either implies that:
A. I think all ways of thinking are equivalent ( aka I'm a dumbass )
B. I think my way of thinking is the most inferior of all and no one should ever be converted to it ( aka I'm a dumbass with low self-esteem )
There is no objective standard that dictates what the correct way of thinking is on the topic of religion.
My point was that given how viscerally people tend to react to challenges to their faith, I suspect your time would be better spent engaging in other pursuits, rather than trying to push your beliefs on others.
It's somewhat ironic that I'm having this discussion with a defender of agnosticism - you should be well familiar with the uncomfortable feeling of having others attempt to push their beliefs on you.
I think this only reflects your own closed-mindedness and you simply assume that everyone is like you and wouldn't change their point of view ever.
No. I'm simply saying that the basis of religious belief is not a rational thing. People hold to their faiths not because logic dictates that they do so - there are numerous faiths from which to choose. They hold to their belief systems because of a subjective sense that they develop that their belief is the correct one, couple in most cases with a long standing tradition and strong community support of their chosen belief.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pursuade someone away - and once you've done that, what will you have accomplished? There is no particular benefit to converting someone away from Faith X.
Furthermore, I'm not clear where I stated that I had any specific system of beliefs.
:Either that or you are terribly arrogant and have figured that everyone else is just way too stupid to ever accept another way of thinking, even if it's better. Unless of course you're still under the impression that all ways of thinking are equivalent, in which case I will refer you to Hitler, Kent Hovind and a 5 year old.
You're making a lot of ad hominem attacks here, and it's taken you all of one post to get round to Hitler. There is no reason to be so defensive. Let's discuss the ideas, rather than each other. I find that to be more stimulating.
It's for the common good.
Faith has caused a lot of conflict over the centuries, this much is true. It's tough to weigh that against all the evil it has potentially prevented. If people did not believe that there was an objective standard of morality or some consequence in the afterlife, would they behave as morally as they do now?
Surely, some would. We have atheists who behave in a moral fashion, so faith isn't required for proper behavior in all cases.
Is there a percentage of the population who would be violent or criminal in their behavior were it not for their beliefs? Possible. Very difficult to prove.
At any rate, debating whether holding to one belief or no beliefs or multiple beliefs is for the "common good" puts us firmly in the realm of speculation.
If you feel it is for the common good to attempt to sway others away from their religion, have at it. Just don't whine about it when you become... unpopular.
You're a pansy. Seriously.
I'm not interested in engaging in conflict when it will accomplish nothing, and may in fact cause me more difficulty than avoiding it altogether.
If there is a concept worth discussing, an idea worth defending, or a cause worth fighting for, then I'm in.
I'm not going to encourage someone to waste energy and open themselves up for attack without sufficient need.
I oppose government sanctioned gay marriage.
I also oppose government sanctioned heterosexual marriage.
Marriage is the most sacred covenant that can be entered into by two people, and for most people is the most intensely private and spiritual ceremony that they will engage in throughout their lifetime. It represents a lifelong commitment, and the most important choice most folks will make. Marriage should be about (and between) the two people making the commitment and whatever God(s) they bring into the relationship with them.
When did we, as a society, get it into our heads that it was acceptable to allow the government to sanction and license our most private of choices? It's none of the government's business who gets married to whom - it is not for them to decide. Barring unions that are against the law for other reasons (for example, the sexual exploitation of minors should always be illegal), the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
This means no tax breaks for married couples, no marriage licenses, no official acknowledgement that marriage exists.
If two people can find someone to get them hitched, be they male, female, or transgender, then I say have at it. Their choices are theirs alone, and they are accountable only to their own moral compass and whatever faiths they believe in.
The role of the government is to guarantee that its citizens are not deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I see nothing in those goals that relates to legislating marriage.
- The TASER is an effective tool when deployed correctly. Because it causes muscular convlusion through electric shock, the TASER can often instantly immobilize a violent individual (without undue harm to the suspect or to bystanders) when OC spray or other measures would not be as effective.
- OC spray is ineffective against certain individuals. Some people have a genetic resistance to it, others are immune due to the effects of drugs or alcohol. Still others simply have the willpower to smash anyone they get their hands on under the effects of OC - it doesn't immobilize you. It just hurts, and makes you blind and angry.
- If you disagree with the use of the TASER, propose an alternative tool that would result in greater preservation of life. Consider that many of the people who are TASED now would have to be shot if the TASER were not used.
You hold an unpopular view in your community. You are not the first to occupy such a position.
The solution is simple. Respect the beliefs and privacy of others, and ask politely that they respect your own.
You should have no particular motivation or desire to convert others to your way of thinking. For one, it's a bit of a lost cause, as it cannot be accomplished with reason. For another, what good would it do to lead a person who is happy with their faith away from it?
...Given that you have no reason to convert others, you have no reason to be spouting off about your beliefs.
If the topic of faith comes up, either comment on it from an academic perspective based on what you know about various faiths (study up if you wish), or politely excuse yourself from the conversation on the basis of it being rude to discuss politics or religion in public.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
