|
CommieGIR posted:
The basic conceit of the macro isn't all that nutty or crazy.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:The basic conceit of the macro isn't all that nutty or crazy. Its making a rather silly comparison. I mean the basic point is that fire extinguishers are the same as guns is rather laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Help me out here, I don't understand. It can't be saying you have to work 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey. I assume it's 'at minimum wage' and 'average cost of [some type of] an apartment', but that image really needs more clarification if you're ever going to use it in an argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Help me out here, I don't understand. It can't be saying you have to work 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey. That is a map showing the number of hours needed to work, per week, at minimum wage to afford a "fair market value" 2-bedroom apartment. Edit: "Fair Market Rent" is determined by HUD. http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/docsys.html&data=fmr12 Edit 2: The graphic comes from a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition: http://nlihc.org/oor/2012 Edit 3: A better graphic from that same report: 
Capt. Sticl fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:That's when you reply with I looked up Jackson County, MO in the Kansas City area, and fair market value was about $750 for an "efficiency". People like to say that you should make three times your rent per month, which is $2,250. There are about 4.3 weeks in a month and minimum wage is $7.25, which comes out to 72 hours/week, which is pretty close to the 74 that the graphic has for the state. Maybe this is close to their methodology? Edit: That other graphic seems to confirm that, 30% of income per week for rent. People will complain about the second graph, since it says 40 hours and what kind of lazy slob only works 40 hours a week? Of course, a lot of minimum wage jobs won't ever give you 40 hours. Joe-Bob fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 06:09
|
|
. Kind of hard to live within your means when your means won't allow you to live at all.
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Just respond "你懵"。 痴線啊，I have to meet with him every week so I'd rather not insult the guy. Funny enough he's totally closeted though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Is it wrong of me to want people to respond to "Going to be another 1776!" stuff with simply, "You're not gonna do it, you don't have the balls?" I've taken this a step further by betting them $10,000 that there will not be a coup d'etat in the US within the next four years, and tell them that they can define the parameters. No takers yet. They don't believe their own revolutionary bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
baw posted:I've taken this a step further by betting them $10,000 that there will not be a coup d'etat in the US within the next four years, and tell them that they can define the parameters. Jokes on them in the event of a revolution those dollars would be worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
I've also heard "I won't have any money by that time if OBAMA is still in charge!" The excuses are priceless. I've told them I'd take assets worth 10k at today's prices if needed. Still no takers. Don't worry Donny, these men are cowards. baw fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jan 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:I got some dogwhistle racism in my inbox the other day, haven't really had the chance to read it over until now. Looks like Fact Check has this one covered; it's always a relief to see a full rebuttal appear in my search results when I go looking for information on the very first claim of 'Illinois foster parents check'. It makes dealing with this sort of bullshit so much easier. It's remarkable to me that anyone could actually believe this to be true. I suppose people convince themselves of what they want to believe though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
The educator of our children; or rather, the person in charge of the educators of our children: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/22/state-school-board-president-defends-hitler-post.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Looks like Fact Check has this one covered; it's always a relief to see a full rebuttal appear in my search results when I go looking for information on the very first claim of 'Illinois foster parents check'. It makes dealing with this sort of bullshit so much easier. It's remarkable to me that anyone could actually believe this to be true. I suppose people convince themselves of what they want to believe though. And the second part is just preposterous. Muslims are having 11 babies per family so that they'll be a majority in 25 years? Currently, high estimates only place Muslims at about 8 million out of 310 million people in America. In order to reach 50%, those 8 million muslims would need to have 300 million babies while the other 300 million people in America had no babies at all. Even if having 11 babies was "a thing", which it isn't, they still wouldn't even come close to a majority in 25 years. It's just mathematically and biologically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Looks like Fact Check has this one covered; it's always a relief to see a full rebuttal appear in my search results when I go looking for information on the very first claim of 'Illinois foster parents check'. It makes dealing with this sort of bullshit so much easier. It's remarkable to me that anyone could actually believe this to be true. I suppose people convince themselves of what they want to believe though. There's also the fact that, even if they were getting $144k a year, that's to support a family of 10 (8 kids, mom, and grandma). If we replace mom and grandma with 2 middle class parents making 70k each, they aren't suddenly living a life of luxury with 8 kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Its making a rather silly comparison. I mean the basic point is that fire extinguishers are the same as guns is rather laughable. Well yeah, guns!=fire extinguishers, but I don't think that was his point. I feel he was taking a common argument 'nobody needs guns because police' and then re-framing it into a different emergency situation to demonstrate its lack of validity. In a more broad sense the point I think he's making is: in certain emergency situations the tools you keep at home can resolve the situation or at least keep it under control until help has arrived, therefore it is prudent to have them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well yeah, guns!=fire extinguishers, but I don't think that was his point. I feel he was taking a common argument 'nobody needs guns because police' and then re-framing it into a different emergency situation to demonstrate its lack of validity. In a more broad sense the point I think he's making is: in certain emergency situations the tools you keep at home can resolve the situation or at least keep it under control until help has arrived, therefore it is prudent to have them. No, I got that part. But it doesn't work if guns do not equal fire extinguishers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:No, I got that part. But it doesn't work if guns do not equal fire extinguishers. It does if guns and fire extinguishers share a common utility, like being used to abate or control certain emergency situations to which there is also an available, but delayed response from certain specialists. Which they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It does if guns and fire extinguishers share a common utility, like being used to abate or control certain emergency situations to which there is also an available, but delayed response from certain specialists. Which they do. The risks involved with using a fire extinguisher is much different then using a gun. Which effectively makes it at best a pointless comparison and at worst a dumb one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
I dunno, I've been sprayed with a fire extinguisher before, and I can tell you that stuff sorta burns when it freezes on your skin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that fire extinguishers are inexpensive, offer a small amount of protection against fires and have minimal risk due to misuse. Firearms on the other hand are expensive, offer a small amount of protection against crime but also have a significant risk associated with misuse, either through accidents, suicide or crime. If you already own a fire extinguisher, fire alarms, Carbon Monoxide detectors, an AED, a well stocked emergency medicine cabinet, and everything that FEMA and the CDC recommend for disaster preparation, you might have a case for a firearm being a net positive in managing risks to your household.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that fire extinguishers are inexpensive, offer a small amount of protection against fires and have minimal risk due to misuse. Only if you define net positive by ignoring the risks of owning a gun. I've never heard of a child killing themselves from getting a hold of a fire extinguisher, or a drunk family member shooting themselves or their spouse to death with a carbon monoxide alarm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
As much as I hate to defend it, I think the point of the macro was to point out the flaw in the argument that people should just wait for the authorities to arrive. While I'm sure the person who made the macro would take it to the next step and insist "Therefore, guns are required for everyone," the actual argument presented only seems to say "So we should keep in mind a solution for those who live an hour from the nearest police station."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:As much as I hate to defend it, I think the point of the macro was to point out the flaw in the argument that people should just wait for the authorities to arrive. While I'm sure the person who made the macro would take it to the next step and insist "Therefore, guns are required for everyone," the actual argument presented only seems to say "So we should keep in mind a solution for those who live an hour from the nearest police station." I've never heard anybody make that argument. Although arguing against strawmen is common enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well yeah, guns!=fire extinguishers, but I don't think that was his point. I feel he was taking a common argument 'nobody needs guns because police' and then re-framing it into a different emergency situation to demonstrate its lack of validity. I don't think I have ever seen anyone make that argument though. It certainly isn't one of the main arguments for gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Only if you define net positive by ignoring the risks of owning a gun. I've never heard of a child killing themselves from getting a hold of a fire extinguisher, or a drunk family member shooting themselves or their spouse to death with a carbon monoxide alarm. The point I'm trying to make though is that few gun owners are rationally addressing the risks in their life. If they actually cared about safety they'd be acting very differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
baw posted:I've taken this a step further by betting them $10,000 that there will not be a coup d'etat in the US within the next four years, and tell them that they can define the parameters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:There's also the fact that, even if they were getting $144k a year, that's to support a family of 10 (8 kids, mom, and grandma). quote:The bottom line: The most a foster family could possibly receive directly from the state for eight foster children is $45,216 for the year — not $144,000. And that’s true only if the state allows so many children to be living in one house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
ledge posted:I don't think I have ever seen anyone make that argument though. It certainly isn't one of the main arguments for gun control. In my experience, if someone is making a ridiculous argument, and you say, "Well, I might agree with you if you were talking about [more reasonable argument]", they'll eventually claim that's what they were trying to say all along, and you're the idiot for not seeing that, DUH, it's obvious, you're not worth their time for debating. Then they'll immediately go back to using the ridiculous argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
So what's with the training exercise that people are flipping their poo poo over? Had a few facebook people go nuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9ioCbqJCU We fire a few blanks and all the crazies think that the military is going to just mow us all down for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 02:46
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:So what's with the training exercise that people are flipping their poo poo over? lmao so now we have people paranoid about "black helicopters" all over again. Along with the gun stuff, this is all deja vu of the mid 90's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Eudaimonian posted:lmao so now we have people paranoid about "black helicopters" all over again. Along with the gun stuff, this is all deja vu of the mid 90's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:And just so we're absolutely clear, they wouldn't. From that FactCheck post: I got the feeling that most of the people who say things like that are those who are working poor but are considered too "rich" for public assistance. Which makes me wonder why they would want public assistance to be taken away for everyone instead of expanded to include all working poor people. Spitefulness must be a wonderful drug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Are they seriously allowed to just shoot machine guns from helicopters inside a civilian neighborhood, rather than in a training facility, blanks or no? That has to violate tons of safety guidelines for responsible gun use. I'm not sure. I would hope that every precaution was taken, but things like this can go badly quick if even one thing goes wrong. I was more focused on mocking people who think it's a precursor to an imminent massacre of gun owners that I lost sight of whether or not it might be safe or proper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Help me out here, I don't understand. It can't be saying you have to work 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey. edit: Blah, missed the last page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-04-20/news/mh-miami-brickell-helicopter-scare-20110420-4_1_helicopters-choppers-drill http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/25/blackhawks-used-in-military-training-exercise-in-miami/ Apparently, they did it in 2011, in a residential area, without warning anyone, and continued the drill all night, which lead to numerous complaints about people unable to get any sleep. So this time, they did it downtown. Can't find anything about the gunfire, though. Still, judging by the fact that the first time they did it they failed to foresee how disruptive it would be, I wouldn't be surprised if they were stupidly firing guns in a major city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
This showed up on Facebook. Intellectuals, scientists, engineers, diplomats, people working for social justice? Pft! They didn't do anything worthwhile! America will be saved by smoking, drinking guys with ARE GUNS!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
It's easy for folks to forget that the Revolutionary War was won primarily by Continental conflicts being a bigger threat than some rebellious backwater colony, and that until the Industrial Revolution, America was just that: a backwater. I guess the fact that we're a military superpower now makes people think that it was always that way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:This showed up on Facebook. I assume they dont want to mention that they were also slave owners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I assume they dont want to mention that they were also slave owners. Thats because most of the people sharing that picture would want to be slave owners again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
And not to de-legitimize the colonist's fight but a major contributor to winning was The French generously donating their fleets. And you know how these sorts feel about The French. Edit: and actually come to think of it that's another serious hurdle for any would-be revolutionaries in modern America. The colonists won largely in part because the French crown had a lot to gain by seeing England lose one of its larger and more profitable colonies. I can't imagine any country of significant size that would have something to gain by destroying the current US government. And should it come to it, PLENTY of countries would willing to contribute supplies to keep the current government in power. Even countries that aren't best friends with America i.e. China have an interest in maintaining the status quo. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:01
|
|