|
Liquid Communism posted:Do you have a better word for 'propelled a projectile out of a firearm via expansion of gasses from a gunpowder explosion' than shoot? Because it's an accurate description here. This is what I'm trying to figure out.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Acceptable words could be: tickled, lightly caressed, stroked, fondled, or "nothing to complain about"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Do you have a better word for 'propelled a projectile out of a firearm via expansion of gasses from a gunpowder explosion' than shoot? Because it's an accurate description here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
It's effectively a meaningless distinction. You can do it if you want but pointing it out just makes you seem pedantic.
CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
If I edit my post to include the kind of ammunition used to shoot her (which is in the article), can we discuss police violence against protesters rather than the connotations of the word "shoot"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sure, but the words used wasn't "potentially lethal force" it was "shoot". I would also say it's dishonest to describing using a taser as shooting without more context. When people say "the police shoot" with no extra information, I think it's reasonable to assume, they mean normal bullets, and I think the author is aware a lot of people will make that incorrect assumption. Or maybe if there's a not-a-real-lead-bullet projectile which happens to come out of the barrel and which hurts or injures someone is covered as "shooting" someone in your book, how about if I held a gun to your head and pulled the trigger, and no projectile came out, but it still killed you from the gas expansion? Is that shooting you, or not? http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/04/local/me-29125 But wait, okay, those are obviously times when someone was killed by accident. So how about when I point a less than lethal rubber bullet gun at you and shoot you, and you die? Did I "shoot" you? What if I fired the rubber bullet and it didn't kill you but only hosed you up real good, did I "shoot" you then?  Okay so now I'm gonna shoot you with a rubber bullet and it'll only injure you in a non-fatal way, did I shoot you?  Or okay, I shot you and you were wearing like, a few layers of heavy clothing and it just felt like you got hit by a bullwhip and a baseball bat at the same time and it left a  big welt, but there was no like, serious physical damage outside of the whole "being kicked by a horse" thing. I didn't shoot you, right? So we've established what "shooting" someone is, and what isn't, right?I mean, I've been hit by a water balloon launcher that knocked me down and left a softball-sized welt for a week, I'd say a rubber bullet probably hurts a lot worse. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
If you say "I'm going to shoot you" and then you fire a blank or a rubber bullet, I'm going to be surprised regardless of the injury I sustain. Maybe when you hear "I'm going to shoot you" you think "well, they didn't specify the type of ammunition, so the ammunition could be anything, including nothing", but I don't think that is an ordinary reaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Yet when you post I never ask you to specifically tell me it's a shitpost. We get it from context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you say "I'm going to shoot you" and then you fire a blank or a rubber bullet, I'm going to be surprised regardless of the injury I sustain. Maybe when you hear "I'm going to shoot you" you think "well, they didn't specify the type of ammunition, so the ammunition could be anything, including nothing", but I don't think that is an ordinary reaction. And yet it'd be just as valid if I pulled out a crossbow and put a bolt in your leg. Piss off with this pedantic derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I believe you mean Crossbolted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills". Even if you believe that it isn't the correct use of pedants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills". "Shut up pedants, let me continue a thread derail about the exact connotations of the word 'shot'" Also, as a pedant, let me note that rubber bullet guns are in fact guns that kill
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
let me translate, "real 'muricans ain't gonna cry like little babby girls because they sustained a mutual impact with a non-lethal defense round.. Grow a pair, bitches"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:How is this related? Sure if you were shooting rubber bullets, the police would have a reasonable fear for their lives. If someone later reported you shot a bunch of police I would call them dishonest. Lots of things "shoot" stuff: staple guns, pitching machines, whatever, if, in the context of a police interaction, someone reports that a person was shot with no other information, I expect it to be with a firearm and normal ammunition. I'm not going to pause and ask "Oh, what if they meant with a paintball?" It's applying the same standards for when police can use force against a civilian to a situation where the police used force against a civilian. The cops can treat being shot at by something as if they were getting shot at. So why can't civilians say they were being shot at, implicitly by bullets, if a cop literally shot a bullet at them? We're not going to agree on this and it's a derail to the main point that the police used force against someone who was not a threat to the police.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I like how the people arguing against the protestors are basically Vogons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:I like how the people arguing against the protestors are basically Vogons. Someone unironically said they wanted people to think like oil companies a few pages ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Why doesn't the company just sign a contract with the land owners stating that if an accident happens then the company will pay for all damages, such as the water being polluted?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Why doesn't the company just sign a contract with the land owners stating that if an accident happens then the company will pay for all damages, such as the water being polluted? Because the company understands that they will, in fact, eventually have an accident; thus it is in their favor not to make such agreements because they will impede the company's lawyers from their arguments in court regarding the scope of damages to be paid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
They already made a $25 million liability insurance in Iowa, by that might only be the case in Iowa. A similar agreement here would probably be the best outcome for all parties, so hopefully the sioux nation can get that out of them. The pipeline gets built, the people living on the reservations get an insurance payout in case of a spill, and the protestors will have proven that you can't just ignore native americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:They already made a $25 million liability insurance in Iowa, by that might only be the case in Iowa. A similar agreement here would probably be the best outcome for all parties, so hopefully the sioux nation can get that out of them. The pipeline gets built, the people living on the reservations get an insurance payout in case of a spill, and the protestors will have proven that you can't just ignore native americans. That's assuming they'll actually pay out when an accident happens as we've seen in the past they tend to be rather resistant
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
If you have an agreement in writing, then it won't be up to them, but the justice system. You've got better odds, and getting that is in itself a 'victory' for the protests.NewForumSoftware posted:Someone unironically said they wanted people to think like oil companies a few pages ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If you have an agreement in writing, then it won't be up to them, but the justice system. You've got better odds, and getting that is in itself a 'victory' for the protests. They have better lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Why doesn't the company just sign a contract with the land owners stating that if an accident happens then the company will pay for all damages, such as the water being polluted? Seriously, in what way is what you propose different from civil court or binding arbitration?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:"Shut up pedants, let me continue a thread derail about the exact connotations of the word 'shot'" ok let me amend my statement Shut up you pedants, nobody cares if rubber bullets technically are bullets. The average person understands "shot" to imply "shot at with a gun that kills as its primary purpose (and not merely as an occasional accident)". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ok let me amend my statement
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ok let me amend my statement  i can't believe you doubled down on this
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ok let me amend my statement let me amend my incredibly pedantic statement about what I assume the semantics of the verb "shoot" to be, but also call everyone else a pedant
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
aclu is getting involved please sign their petition: https://action.aclu.org/secure/Standing-Rock?redirect=StandingRockTW&ms=tw_161105_freespeech_policemilitarization
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Why doesn't the company just sign a contract with the land owners stating that if an accident happens then the company will pay for all damages, such as the water being polluted? Really what ought to be done is to restructure how limited liability corporations can be formed and can remain an entity. They really were formed to encourage investment in high risk and low growth areas, and eventually grew to encompass virtually every reasonably-sized business out there. They've come a long way from when the board of investors were expected to also be wholesome and informed citizens with an interest in pursuing a reasonable profit through public works intended to improve everyone's lot coyo7e fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:You can't really put a dollar value on that kind of damage. People do all the time but the costs are absolutely enormous, widespread, and have a long tail that can last for years or decades before you know the true extent of damage. The fines these companies pay are usually insignificant compared to the profit they make in a given period of time, and the money doesn't tend to end up in the hands of anyone who suffered. This is true - any kind of leak or spill into even the most 'resistant' ground (like soil with high numbers of clay lens, naturally occurring caps, etc) makes for a big, expensive mess. The second any kind of contaminant hits water the expense goes up by a factor of ten, and groundwater adds another factor. When it goes to litigation, and it will go there because even the smallest oil company will NEVER, EVER admit liability, tens of millions of dollars will go to attorneys. Millions will go to expert witnesses and firms that specialize in this kind of litigation that will spend a lot of time and money poking holes and taking samples and doing dick all to clean up the mess. While lawyers spar in the courtroom and thousands of documents are filed to drown the tribe in paperwork, time will pass....and children will die. Cancer will grow. The land will choke and sputter into a graveyard. If luck is with the people, eventually, after getting their arm twisted, the company will settle for some amount that is wholly inadequate to ease the suffering, or to motivate them to change their practices. They will do it, again, and again, and again, until the cost of killing outweighs their profit. That is a best case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Hey man, I'm not arguing against the protestors, they're doing what they have to do. The whole thing to me is a tragedy. What is a tragedy is that Climate Change is happening at the scale it is and you have people unwilling to just accept their ways of life because they don't have every bit of scientific fact you had made available to you due to the absurd inequality in our society. You have a problem with "oil = death"? Really? Have you taken a step back and maybe considered that the fossil fuel industry actually is driving a lot of death on this planet and that maybe, just maybe, their abstraction is a little better than "thinking like an oil company".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What is a tragedy is that Climate Change is happening at the scale it is and you have people unwilling to just accept their ways of life because they don't have every bit of scientific fact you had made available to you due to the absurd inequality in our society. You have a problem with "oil = death"? Really? Have you taken a step back and maybe considered that the fossil fuel industry actually is driving a lot of death on this planet and that maybe, just maybe, their abstraction is a little better than "thinking like an oil company". Part of it is spite for daring to ask people to lift a finger, part of it is blind loyalty to the Republicans no matter how incorrect, some if it is the idea that latching onto fossil fuels will somehow help people suffering from those collapsing industries, and the other part is likely dead if the idea that you personally had a share in ruining the environment. Combined, you get such determination to stay in denial that they will gladly see protesters brutally attacked and millions starve rather than admit fault. That the protesters aren't mostly white helps since the media doesn't give enough of a drat to pay attention to attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Oil KKKompanies are cool and good people, people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
And your alternative to allowing defendants in civil suits to hire lawyers, call witnesses, and pay experts to appear is..?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And your alternative to allowing defendants in civil suits to hire lawyers, call witnesses, and pay experts to appear is..? That isn't what I said or implied, but thanks for twisting my words around. I am a bit upset because of the mismatch between billion-dollar corporations with massive warchests being pitted against a small community with few resources in an arena where verdicts shouldn't be for sale seems counter to our ideals of justice. Perhaps a more well-funded, aggressive, and toothy EPA and environmental regulatory scheme would do a lot to alleviate the problem, but in the anemic state those are in it falls (unfairly) to the local community to try preventing harm, or obtaining relief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Oh come on. The legal system is 100% used and abused by those in a position of power to extract a desireable outcome. Corporations spending obscene amounts of wealth to draw out the legal process in transparent attempts to outlast either the bank account or the Iifespan of the poor/sick individual taking them to court isn't "justice", and your completely context-less defence of "b-b-but the law works!!!" is laughable and inane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Those poor, plucky little multi-billion dollar TNCs. How do they ever survive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What is a tragedy is that Climate Change is happening at the scale it is and you have people unwilling to just accept their ways of life because they don't have every bit of scientific fact you had made available to you due to the absurd inequality in our society. You have a problem with "oil = death"? Really? Have you taken a step back and maybe considered that the fossil fuel industry actually is driving a lot of death on this planet and that maybe, just maybe, their abstraction is a little better than "thinking like an oil company". Geostomp posted:Part of it is spite for daring to ask people to lift a finger, part of it is blind loyalty to the Republicans no matter how incorrect, some if it is the idea that latching onto fossil fuels will somehow help people suffering from those collapsing industries, and the other part is likely dead if the idea that you personally had a share in ruining the environment. Combined, you get such determination to stay in denial that they will gladly see protesters brutally attacked and millions starve rather than admit fault. (Incidentally, here's an interesting observation: if the sovereign citizen idiots honestly believed their 'government overreach' rhetoric, and were really looking for a confrontation, wouldn't they be here, at the pipeline? If they actually have conviction in their ideals, they'd be waving their guns around at that pipeline site. But will they ever turn up? loving nope) But the fact of the matter is that we live in a society dominated by resource extraction and dependent on high productivity. Suppose you're a hunter gather, you're in a small group (which you have to be to keep mobile), but your life is pretty simple. You hunt, fish, move, rinse repeat. As long as you're able to move, you can get by. But then, some foreigners come in, with plant seeds, and show you how to farm. It's hard work, but you don't have to move around anymore - you can live in an actual house now, instead of some stupid tent/lean-to. And hey, if thigns go south, you can always go back to the way things where. Fast forward a couple of generations, and your little troupe is now a couple of hundred people - far larger than the area can support hunting and gathering. You no longer have a choice of escaping, you're stuck on the land, there's just too many mouths to feed. This is the situation we are in, but with industry. and industrialization. Only worse. Because now, every step of the production of goods requires an incredible amount of domain-specific knowledge, that takes years to develop. You can't have a situation anymore, where tanks roll of the production line in Stalingrad, half-painted but functional, because most everyone knows the basic skills necessary for most of its construction - no, that poo poo doesn't fly anymore. It's not enough for things to be done well, they have to be done perfectly. Conversely, any impact on economic growth is going to throw people out of work, who feasibly cannot be placed back into the economy for many years, or maybe even ever. Any impediment to economic growth is now an existential threat to the stability of the social system and, therefore, carries with it the threat of an incredible amount of human suffering. This is why the protestors will lose, and the pipeline will be built. The naive response to this is to reject development/whatever as a whole, to think things can go back to the way they were, to think the clock can be turned back - it can't. The problem was never the oil, nor even the oil company. This is why it is a 'tragedy'. The only way out is 'through', and the only way 'through' is ruthless materialism - 'thinking like an oil company'. Only applied to whatever goal you actually want. I've never called the protestors stupid, or dumb, or uneducated, or whatever, because I don't think they are. They just have a different perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:39
|
|