USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Lemming posted:

This entire loving post is you replacing "guns" with "cars" and ignoring all other context, idiot. There are more relevant factors than "how many people does this kill a year."

Show me where the word "guns" is in that post. Have you noticed steinrokkan is not saying "Hold up, I only meant for my descriptions of externalities of rights impinging on each other to apply to guns, that was never intended for anything else", and that I am specifically accusing them of that behavior, but pretending to have a general framework?

Trabisnikof posted:

You might have a "right" to buy a car but you certainly don't have a right to drive it.

What are you getting at here, you think people should be able to buy whatever gun they want just not shoot them on public land?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:15

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

Show me where the word "guns" is in that post. Have you noticed steinrokkan is not saying "Hold up, I only meant for my descriptions of externalities of rights impinging on each other to apply to guns, that was never intended for anything else", and that I am specifically accusing them of that behavior, but pretending to have a general framework?

What are you getting at here, you think people should be able to buy whatever gun they want just not shoot them on public land?

That your inane :iiaca:

is pointless and selfdefeating because it is a lovely comparison.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:06

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Dead Reckoning posted:

Yay, car analogy time!

No, they're not, not in the way you think at least. I can build a dragster with no plates, that runs on coal slurry, and has no seat belts, and let a felon with a suspended license drive it, and as long as I do it on private property, the state DMV and Highway Patrol won't say squat. Virtually every law related to the operation of motor vehicles is with respect to operating them on public roads, lands, or waterways.

I think gun ownership should be the same way, that you can more or less do as you please and own what you want on private property (so long as it doesn't endanger your neighbors) and that public activity should be regulated by a series of shall-issue licenses, depending on what you want to do.

If you invent a gun that can't be moved away from your house, you can keep it. A car that doesn't meet government regulations is going to be pretty hard to smuggle away from your private yard or circuit or whatever, unlike a gun.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:06

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

If you invent a gun that can't be moved away from your house, you can keep it. A car that doesn't meet government regulations is going to be pretty hard to smuggle away from your private yard or circuit or whatever, unlike a gun.

Idgi, are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to build track cars because they might take them on public roads in violation of the law?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:08

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Dead Reckoning posted:

Idgi, are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to build track cars because they might take them on public roads in violation of the law?

I'm saying a car is much harder to smuggle out of your property illegally than a gun. Also it is harder to shoot your neighbor with a car parked on your property.

But I accept your premise. You CAN have guns within the limits of your personally owned property. However, as soon as any privately owned gun moves to public land or to the land of somebody who hasn't given you a written permit, you go to jail. I don't care how you plan on getting the gun from the store to your place.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:11

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Crowsbeak posted:

If someone wants to have lead in the thing they killed let them do so. Don't take it away from them.

I propose massive fines for every gram of lead expended that doesn't end up (and remain) in the hunter's own stomach.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:17

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Breaking up gunchat for a spell...

What do we know about the populist Dem who just won Birmingham? Evil unelectable commie black panther about to sink the party or centrist sellout squish party apparatchik?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:19

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The Tyranny of the Obama Regime still continues to impact the lives of everyday Americans.

quote:

FDA: "love" isn't an ingredient

Resolving one of the final cases still active from the Obama Administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has told the Nashoba Brook Bakery, in Concord, Massachusetts, that "love" shouldn't be listed on packaging for its granola.

In a letter posted this week, the agency says federal regulations require that ingredients must be listed by their common or usual name, and that "love" is not a common or usual name of an ingredient.

The bakery's CEO, John Gates, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the bakery will be "fully cooperative" with the FDA. But he also said the company has gotten a positive reaction from people since news of the letter began to circulate.

"It taps this feeling that a lot of Americans have that there are ways in which the government can overreach, and it seems kind of silly," Gates said. "Because it's about the word love, it's cathartic. ... It makes it something that people can smile at."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-sorry-love-isnt-an-ingredient/

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:22

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

I'm saying a car is much harder to smuggle out of your property illegally than a gun. Also it is harder to shoot your neighbor with a car parked on your property.

But I accept your premise. You CAN have guns within the limits of your personally owned property. However, as soon as any privately owned gun moves to public land or to the land of somebody who hasn't given you a written permit, you go to jail. I don't care how you plan on getting the gun from the store to your place.

It's endlessly hilarious that you're actually arguing that the law shouldn't be consistent because people might break the law, in the thread where people were deliberately misinterpreting me as saying that there shouldn't be any laws because people might break them :allears:

Also, where do you live? Taking a car off private property and into public is usually as simple as opening the gate and driving through.

steinrokkan: "Guns should be regulated like cars!"
Me: "Yeah, OK, given the way we actually regulate cars, that would work."
steinrokkan: "NO! Guns should be illegal everywhere in public, not like cars!"

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:22

No Butt Stuff: Jun 10, 2004

Provided it's registered and permitted, as well as the operator, who must also be insured.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:23

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

I'm beginning to think this Dead Reckoning guy may not be arguing honestly.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

No Butt Stuff posted:

Provided it's registered and permitted, as well as the operator, who must also be insured.

You already need a permit to carry in most jurisdictions, and I would enthusiastically support making them shall issue the way drivers licenses are. Insurance generally doesn't cover intentional acts, so IDK where you're going with that, except as a "ho ho, I've come up with one weird trick to price gun owners out of owning guns, no one has ever thought of this before!"

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:27

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

steinrokkan posted:

I'm beginning to think this Dead Reckoning guy may not be arguing honestly.

He never has and he never will.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:27

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Office Pig posted:

Believe it or not, criminal justice reform is underway in America.

Maybe the US needs to go to "rehab" to get over its addiction to slavery.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Lemming posted:

He never has and he never will.

What gives you any impression that I don't honestly believe the things I'm posting?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:29

No Butt Stuff: Jun 10, 2004

Dead Reckoning posted:

You already need a permit to carry in most jurisdictions, and I would enthusiastically support making them shall issue the way drivers licenses are. Insurance generally doesn't cover intentional acts, so IDK where you're going with that, except as a "ho ho, I've come up with one weird trick to price gun owners out of owning guns, no one has ever thought of this before!"

Yes, it is me, the one arguing in an intentionally obtuse manner.

(Where I live you can carry concealed without a permit. Even in the state capital.)

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:30

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Dead Reckoning posted:

You already need a permit to carry in most jurisdictions, and I would enthusiastically support making them shall issue the way drivers licenses are. Insurance generally doesn't cover intentional acts, so IDK where you're going with that, except as a "ho ho, I've come up with one weird trick to price gun owners out of owning guns, no one has ever thought of this before!"

The trick is that only a small number of guns would be allowed outside your retarded compound, and even then only with a permit. The rest would be entirely off limits as far as the public space is concerned.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:30

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Rent-A-Cop posted:

idgi

Also don't understand duck hunting. Duck isn't that good and chickens are way easier to shoot.

You obviously don't know how to cook duck. Duck is loving awesome and very good for you. Breast meat is like a good steak done rare. And duck fat is nectar of the gods.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:30

Faustian Bargain: Apr 12, 2014

Dead Reckoning posted:

What gives you any impression that I don't honestly believe the things I'm posting?

He's giving you way too much credit by claiming you don't.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:30

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

twodot posted:

This is borderline incoherent to me. Like are you making an argument you'd be fine with people owning guns if there was a government regulation to only make steel bullets? Also things like fraud are not externalities of speech and plagiarism isn't an externality of printers. Fraud isn't a byproduct of people talking, it's its own specific category of speech.

The big externality from gun production and sales isn't lead contamination, it's gun violence. Fraud, threats and incitement are types of speech with negative extenalities. A government ban on a specific type of speech--like incitement-- is no different than a ban on a particular type of weapon--like a machine gun.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Inanimate objects are the same as behavior. Clearly a reasonable and well thought out position.

steinrokkan posted:

The trick is that only a small number of guns would be allowed outside your retarded compound, and even then only with a permit. The rest would be entirely off limits as far as the public space is concerned.

So, not at all like cars then.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 4, 2017

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:35

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Faustian Bargain posted:

He's giving you way too much credit by claiming you don't.

He believes his positions because he's an evil idiot, but every argument he's ever made has been disingenuous and in bad faith.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:35

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Dead Reckoning posted:

Alcoholic beverages have no redeeming social benefit and serious negative externalities, yet people will tie themselves in knots in order to insist that it shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as guns. Because it's not actually about some numeric calculation of lives lost.

And no one would suggest banning cars for those who need them to get to work, or to get food, but any vehicle not deemed suitable for those purposes should be banned, as should all recreational car trips. Is saving time getting to the bar or the movie theater really worth the lives that would be saved by reducing passenger-miles? (Sound familiar?)

you are legit such a dumb motherfucker actually

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:49

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

This. loving. Country.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/10/04/judge-considers-dismissing-joe-arpaio-contempt-case/731525001/

quote:

A U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix has accepted the presidential pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

At the request of both Arpaio defense attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice lawyers, Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the guilty verdict against Arpaio with prejudice, meaning it can never be tried again.

Arpaio had been found guilty in July of criminal contempt for �flagrant disregard� of a judge's order.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:51

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

JeffersonClay posted:

The big externality from gun production and sales isn't lead contamination, it's gun violence.

Ok I agree with this, but it makes the comparison with leaded gasoline weird. Like cars used to shoot lead into the environment, we decided that was bad, but instead of banning cars or imposing passenger-mile maximums, or whatever, we made cars do that less, and let people drive as much as they like.

quote:

Fraud, threats and incitement are types of speech with negative extenalities. A government ban on a specific type of speech--like incitement-- is no different than a ban on a particular type of weapon--like a machine gun.

This is just nonsense. Fraud, threats, and incitement, are intrinsically negative speech. They aren't otherwise fine speech that occasionally harm people, they are, by definition, bad. A government ban on threatening someone is very different from a government ban of possession of a dangerous object. Governments do manage externalities, but how it does it varies a lot. Like if a manufacturer of tires is polluting a river, the government doesn't generally forbid tire production, it just makes tire producers pay the cost of cleaning up the river (or the cost of avoiding polluting generally). Also driving has a bunch of negative externalities, but the government doesn't ban driving, it just makes people possess car insurance to pay for accidents, and taxes to pay for road wear and tear and such. I'm struggling to think of even one example where we ban an activity rather than just force the actor to pay for the costs of their externalities. (Obviously in some cases that's an effective ban if the externalities are so costly the actor no longer wants to do it)

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:54

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Dead Reckoning posted:

What gives you any impression that I don't honestly believe the things I'm posting?

the two choices presented by your posting are 1. you are knowingly engaging in bad faith 2. you are merely heart-stoppingly stupid.

remember back when cops turning their body cams off wasn't actually something that happened, because you would have preferred it not to be the case? good times.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:56

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

Paracaidas posted:

This. loving. Country.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/10/04/judge-considers-dismissing-joe-arpaio-contempt-case/731525001/

This'll probably end up going higher, to be honest.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:56

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

Like if a manufacturer of tires is polluting a river, the government doesn't generally forbid tire production, it just makes tire producers pay the cost of cleaning up the river (or the cost of avoiding polluting generally).

Again with your lovely metaphors. There are numerous products that are banned in the united states because of the pollution those products cause.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 19:56

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Crime isn't pollution and is managed in very different ways. HTH.

Domestic Amuse posted:

Hey Dead Reckoning, what do you think about former felons having their right to own firearms restored?

I think it depends on the felony.

In general, I think that felons should have their rights restored automatically, especially their voting rights, at the end of their sentence/parole. If someone is too dangerous to exercise the rights of an ordinary citizen, they should still be in jail, or at least on supervised release. If their crime was a non-violent one, I don't see why they shouldn't have their firearm rights restored with the rest of their rights. OTOH, if they were a bank robber or other violent felon, I can see not automatically restoring their rights, but I think they should be able to petition the courts for a finding that they have demonstrated that they are no longer a threat to others.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 20:02

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

The DDT industry says there are all sorts of legitimate uses for DDT and the government trying to generally forbid it is just a refusal to engage the DDT industry about the comparative values of different freedoms.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 20:02

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

I value strangers lives over your guns.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 20:58

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

RuanGacho posted:

I value strangers lives over your guns.

Same. And I'm saying this as a person who likes guns and going to the range.

I'm lucky because I'm active at my local VFW, and the guy who owns the range is a member there, he personally invited me. Going to the range and doing some minor political stuff has kept me engaged with a different side of my community and that's awesome, but I still believe in strict gun control always. Despite probably being one of the people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, I am okay with that because I believe that human life is more important than my dumb hobby.

Koalas March fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 4, 2017

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:03

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Sephyr posted:

Breaking up gunchat for a spell...

What do we know about the populist Dem who just won Birmingham? Evil unelectable commie black panther about to sink the party or centrist sellout squish party apparatchik?

por que no los dos dot gif

He seems pretty awesome to me policy wise, but I am myself a filthy centrist by Bad Thread standards so that's not as resounding an endorsement as it might otherwise be. :v:

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:04

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

The gun is powerful.

The gun is good.

The gun is strength.

The gun is right.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:05

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Paracaidas posted:

This. loving. Country.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/10/04/judge-considers-dismissing-joe-arpaio-contempt-case/731525001/

I have a problem with the pardon but I don't think I have a problem with this ruling. It's the logical conclusion.

I'm not clear on what the last line of the article refers to about considering also vacating other orders in this particular case. He's no longer sheriff, are there any that still are relevant?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:09

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

GreyjoyBastard posted:

por que no los dos dot gif

He seems pretty awesome to me policy wise, but I am myself a filthy centrist by Bad Thread standards so that's not as resounding an endorsement as it might otherwise be.

You most certainly are, my good chum!

Woodfin is actually decent however, and a marked improvement over the incumbent.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:11

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

DrNutt posted:

So uh, someone creating ads for the Walking Dead Facebook game has some poo poo timing.

When the gently caress did img tags become such a pain in the rear end?

They didn't, imgur became a pain in the rear end when they hid/removed the bbcode options.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 21:43

Democrazy: Oct 16, 2008; If you're not willing to lick the boot, then really why are you in politics lol? Everything is a cycle of just getting stomped on so why do you want to lose to it over and over, just submit like me, I'm very intelligent.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You already need a permit to carry in most jurisdictions, and I would enthusiastically support making them shall issue the way drivers licenses are. Insurance generally doesn't cover intentional acts, so IDK where you're going with that, except as a "ho ho, I've come up with one weird trick to price gun owners out of owning guns, no one has ever thought of this before!"

If you made a rule requiring gun owners to have insurance on incidents involving their gun, couldn't the government create a program if the private market doesn't make one?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:03

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

lol

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/915683974705565696

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 12:15

NoEyedSquareGuy: Mar 16, 2009; Just because Liquor's dead, doesn't mean you can just roll this bitch all over town with "The Freedoms."

Rigel posted:

lol

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/915683974705565696

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-politicians-receive-thousands-of-dollars-8108659.php

quote:

Of the current lawmakers from Texas, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, has received by far the most money � a staggering $51,650. The next closest Texas representative is Joe Barton, who has been given a mere $31,500 from the NRA. Seventeen other Congress members from Texas have accepted more than $10,000 in NRA donations.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »