|
I googled around to try to find a news story on it, I found a few but they had no more information than the video. The fact she was recording and had obviously instigated before the camera was rolling makes me feel she was intentionally trying to bait a reaction for some reason. Maybe a lawsuit, or just a viral video, or something. Either way it doesn't seem like the guy was being that angry for no reason.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
Midig posted:Very few people yell at someone like that for nothing. I personally think she tried to tick him off on purpose so she could have a nice viral video. Not that it matters. I can come up with very few situations where it's appropriate to not listen to someone to "get out". If its a club, your home, your car etc. This is extremely obvious because she only starts filming as soon as he starts yelling, and he mentions she has been rude, condescending (which is painfully obvious if you listen to her tone), and late despite claiming to be in a rush (yet she is sticking around saying "where am i sir" while directly in front of the hospital she wanted to go to). I think he showed some restraint from not actually calling the cops or even worse physically removing her from the car. You know he wanted to. also he had great timing in shutting her down every time she tried to get in whatever sick line she was trying to start with "you are facing".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
I'm sure drivers know by now that they really should'nt ever physically try to remove someone from the car, that's only asking for a bullshit lawsuit. If it escalates to that point just call the cops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm sure drivers know by now that they really should'nt ever physically try to remove someone from the car, that's only asking for a bullshit lawsuit. If it escalates to that point just call the cops. Not to mention that someone sitting has a perfect position to kick/punch you as well if you try to drag them out. If they don't have any decency then you cant expect them to not do that. All taxis should have some sort of registration requirement to even take a lift. Don't leave when asked, threaten someone or try to bail out of payment and you get a ticket. Midig has a new favorite as of 19:29 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Ball gymnastics is cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Spiderman wears them.  Whitlam posted:Ball gymnastics is cool. - Metalocalypse > Venture Bros. There, I said it. Venture Bros. had a lot of surprise potential in Season 2 that was mostly realized in Season 3, but everything since then has been treading water at best and rubberbanding to a status quo no one cares about at worst. Meanwhile the entire joke of Metalocalypse is that the main characters are oblivious to how deadly and serious everything around them is because they're vain, idiotic music gods, which has a lot more flexible mileage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:If Spider-Man jumped off a building would you too? Do I have robot octopus arms in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Is my name Gwen Stacy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Will probably be flayed alive for this opinion, but I don't see chemical weapons as any better or worse than weapons already used in conventional warfare, bombs and bullets still cause people to die in a horrific fashion as is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
Google image search "mustard gas effects" and you'll see why people aren't big fans of chemical weapons. I think the main reason is because they're hard to control so you could wind up with more civilian causalities as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Google image search "mustard gas effects" and you'll see why people aren't big fans of chemical weapons. I think the main reason is because they're hard to control so you could wind up with more civilian causalities as well. You can do the same for "grenade injury to stomach" though, and with all the tech put into missiles and such to make them "smart", civilian casualties still happen, I'm not trying to say "eh who cares", I just think chemical weapons are put on a their own special pedestal despite conventional weapons not only being capable of doing the horrible things chemical weapons can do, but they have a very long history of doing so. Tarantula has a new favorite as of 14:08 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
The whole chemical attack thing doesn't really matter anymore given that these latest bombings targetted civilian centers. Can't really bitch about leaders killing their own citizens when your're response is to kill more of their citizens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Gas is more about spreading fear and terror than killing. It's way more effective to just drop real bombs on people if you want them dead. Evil people like Winston Churchill and Mussolini support the use of chemical/gas attacks on their colonies like Ethiopia because it keeps most of people alive while still being devastating. Basically it's only for assholes and Assad knows exactly what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Gas is more about spreading fear and terror than killing. It's way more effective to just drop real bombs on people if you want them dead. Evil people like Winston Churchill and Mussolini support the use of chemical/gas attacks on their colonies like Ethiopia because it keeps most of people alive while still being devastating. Basically it's only for assholes and Assad knows exactly what he's doing. Which is why predator drones should be banned. This piece of technology has made an entire generation of people afraid of clear blue skies, because at any moment you and everything and everyone you've known ever known would be engulfed in literal hellfire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
A lot of people don't like drones. They are just too scary. Some day the tech will advance so far that we'll be sending them in to poison the water supply and make the women infertile. No bombs, no deaths, and no idea about the effects until decades later.
Mu Zeta has a new favorite as of 14:22 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
The U.S. uses cluster bombs which are supposed to be banned and all kinds of horrific poo poo. They use white phosphorous too. The U.S. Uses plenty of things as bad as chemical weapons they just happen to have the clout to make sure they're not banned, it's not any kind of higher morality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:Will probably be flayed alive for this opinion, but I don't see chemical weapons as any better or worse than weapons already used in conventional warfare, bombs and bullets still cause people to die in a horrific fashion as is. It's strange where the line is drawn. 'Precision' weapons kill far more civilians than chemical weapons, and bombs like MOABs / BLU82 kill are too powerful to limit casualties to a target - but they're considered legal. The rationale is that chemical weapons can never be used in a discriminating way - but I suspect it's more to do with the fact that those who have the high-tech poo poo make the 'rules' of war, and anyone who doesn't agree to be a sitting duck is automatically a terrorist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
All I know is that if I had to choose between being blown up by a drone or die from sarin gas I'd pick the drone. Drones usually target a building or like one vehicle at a time at least. Gas is unpredictable and can spread everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:All I know is that if I had to choose between being blown up by a drone or die from sarin gas I'd pick the drone. Drones usually target a building or like one vehicle at a time at least. Gas is unpredictable and can spread everywhere. That drone strike could still leave you to die in a pretty horrible fashion, maybe better maybe worse than being killed by gas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Yes but intent matters IMO. Drone strikes are ideally targeted at individuals with minimum collateral casualties. This can fail but it's often successful. A gas attack is meant to spread as much as possible. Imagine if the US never used drone strikes and used mustard gas instead in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Yes but intent matters IMO. Drone strikes are ideally targeted at individuals with minimum collateral casualties. This can fail but it's often successful. A gas attack is meant to spread as much as possible. Imagine if the US never used drone strikes and used mustard gas instead in Afghanistan. Yea I totally agree with you on the first part, my issue is the way people to react to a gas attack compared to something like a barrel bomb or drone strike, they all suck in their own way, but only one generates huge outrage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Well yeah that's because nobody really gives a gently caress. There's that ethnic cleansing happening in Myanmar and nobody is lifting a finger. Even the chemical attacks haven't gotten a reaction. They blew up a couple things and nothing really changed. All is going as intended for Assad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Yes but intent matters IMO. Drone strikes are ideally targeted at individuals with minimum collateral casualties. This can fail but it's often successful. A gas attack is meant to spread as much as possible. Imagine if the US never used drone strikes and used mustard gas instead in Afghanistan. That is the core idea - intent matters. Thermobaric weapons are more than capable of leaving people slowly choking on their own lung tissue and blood, but that's not the mechanism of action that targeting planners are relying on. When you use gas, you're explicitly relying on relatively slow, painful deaths. Whether that matters to the dead is left as an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
There is no moral way to conduct a war. There will always be innocent people that die, especially with people intentionally hiding among civilians. Like Mu Zeta said the thing with chemical weapons is it's hard to argue a tactical reason to use chemical weapons against another military since they will probably have protective gear ready - it's the civilians that will get hit hte hardest and they'll all die a painful death, instead of a missile, which will still kill innocent people but in a less drawn out way (usually) so the public is more comfortable thinking "well at least they went quick". In terms of outrage, yeah there's a big disparity and we shouldn't pretend there is a neat and clean way to do a war. Killing is killing. It should be viewed the same way regardless of the method used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
PHUO: war loving sucks, we should not do it unless it's literally a holocaust as the alternative. Also Bush and friends really probably should have stood trial, not that they're at all unique among world leaders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
PHUO: War is inevitable as way too many powerful fuckers get their power via nepotism and/or latent psychopathy. War is very profitable if you know which business interests to back--including those protesting against said wars--and your "side" doesn't even need to win for you to make out like a King. As long as there is something to ostensibly be fought over--resources, "human rights," territory--there will be war. Knowing that we are ultimately powerless, it is best for your and your loved ones' survival to figure out how to Catch-22 that poo poo... or figure out the quickest way to exit through the gift shop, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also Bush and friends really probably should have stood trial, not that they're at all unique among world leaders. If they did, Bush should probably get a lighter sentence than the people behind the scenes. Being manipulated doesn't make you innocent but the string-pullers should be punished more harshly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Also, there should be national civilian organizations that function like the military but without the part where their main purpose is to fight. A place where clueless kids out of high school can get a steady, real paycheck instead of minimum wage crap work, get some skills and experience, contribute to society, and generally do something worthwhile while figuring poo poo out. We're fine with kids learning to kill or die for country so why not have them doing civilian labour? There could be lots of options depending on their skills and interests. Working on infrastructure, construction, low-tier medical work, clerical poo poo, cleanup. Let them get experience in a field, make real money, and give them a buffer while they learn to be an adult without having to assume the burdens of either wage-slave unskilled labour or take on college debt while somehow deciding what degree or certification is worth pursuing even though they're clueless teenagers. At the end of the day it would be a make-work program but the point wouldn't be maximum economic efficiency, it'd be helping people and building the country. Honestly the starship troopers setup would be a good start, just remove the neofascist parts about "service obtains citizenship" or whatever. gently caress that noise, but focus on the part where "if you show up with a pulse and genuinely desire to help out, we will find something for you to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:the thing with chemical weapons is it's hard to argue a tactical reason to use chemical weapons against another military since they will probably have protective gear ready - it's the civilians that will get hit hte hardest and they'll all die a painful death, instead of a missile, which will still kill innocent people but in a less drawn out way (usually) so the public is more comfortable thinking "well at least they went quick".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Isn't that a tactical consideration though? If it influences how the enemy responds then it affects the outcome of the war. I meant tactical in the sense of disabling the country's military. Probably not the best word. Obviously mass-killing of civilians will effect the outcome of war, but it's not exactly the most desirable/honorable way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also, there should be national civilian organizations that function like the military but without the part where their main purpose is to fight. A place where clueless kids out of high school can get a steady, real paycheck instead of minimum wage crap work, get some skills and experience, contribute to society, and generally do something worthwhile while figuring poo poo out. We're fine with kids learning to kill or die for country so why not have them doing civilian labour? There could be lots of options depending on their skills and interests. Working on infrastructure, construction, low-tier medical work, clerical poo poo, cleanup. Let them get experience in a field, make real money, and give them a buffer while they learn to be an adult without having to assume the burdens of either wage-slave unskilled labour or take on college debt while somehow deciding what degree or certification is worth pursuing even though they're clueless teenagers. At the end of the day it would be a make-work program but the point wouldn't be maximum economic efficiency, it'd be helping people and building the country. It’s “service guarantees citizenship” but I can forgive that This time
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also, there should be national civilian organizations that function like the military but without the part where their main purpose is to fight. A place where clueless kids out of high school can get a steady, real paycheck instead of minimum wage crap work, get some skills and experience, contribute to society, and generally do something worthwhile while figuring poo poo out. We're fine with kids learning to kill or die for country so why not have them doing civilian labour? There could be lots of options depending on their skills and interests. Working on infrastructure, construction, low-tier medical work, clerical poo poo, cleanup. Let them get experience in a field, make real money, and give them a buffer while they learn to be an adult without having to assume the burdens of either wage-slave unskilled labour or take on college debt while somehow deciding what degree or certification is worth pursuing even though they're clueless teenagers. At the end of the day it would be a make-work program but the point wouldn't be maximum economic efficiency, it'd be helping people and building the country. I don't think that's a feasible system. Using tax money to pay for unproductive labor that doesn't give people the skills or education to be able to move on to better jobs. Seems like it would just create a new class of people living hand to mouth, utterly dependent on the system with no option other than to stay in their dead-end job for life. It would also make things harder for working class people not enrolled in the program as it would restrict the number of available unskilled work. A similar project was attempted in the wake of the Second French Revolution, with it's National Workshops, and failed pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:PHUO: war loving sucks, we should not do it unless it's literally a holocaust as the alternative. War, and violence in a more general sense, are never going to go away completely. No matters what treaties or ideals you have, there will come a situation where all other options have been exhausted and the only thing left is to use physical force. Instead of some make-work program, people should get a basic income. It would be cheaper too. doverhog has a new favorite as of 21:33 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Violence breeds violence, but in the end it has to be this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
It should be a last resort, but if you give up your ability to use force, you are at the mercy of someone who did not make that same choice. Ideally, the implicit threat of violence is enough, and the capacity never has to be actually used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
War. War never changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
War changes, but the reason it exists does not. When all pretense and sophistication is gone, you still have your own body and the laws of physics with which to say "no".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also, there should be national civilian organizations that function like the military but without the part where their main purpose is to fight. A place where clueless kids out of high school can get a steady, real paycheck instead of minimum wage crap work, get some skills and experience, contribute to society, and generally do something worthwhile while figuring poo poo out. We're fine with kids learning to kill or die for country so why not have them doing civilian labour? There could be lots of options depending on their skills and interests. Working on infrastructure, construction, low-tier medical work, clerical poo poo, cleanup. Let them get experience in a field, make real money, and give them a buffer while they learn to be an adult without having to assume the burdens of either wage-slave unskilled labour or take on college debt while somehow deciding what degree or certification is worth pursuing even though they're clueless teenagers. At the end of the day it would be a make-work program but the point wouldn't be maximum economic efficiency, it'd be helping people and building the country. Like the Civilian Conservation Corps? They built a lot of the state parks back in Roosevelt's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:Yea I totally agree with you on the first part, my issue is the way people to react to a gas attack compared to something like a barrel bomb or drone strike, they all suck in their own way, but only one generates huge outrage. Gas weapons are too unreliable to be used in actual battle. They tend to blow around and are just as likely to kill your own dudes as they are to kill the enemy dues. They are perfect for dropping a bunch of canisters to vomit air that will literally kill you if you inhale it all over any area you want to terrorize. Notice that chemical weapons generally aren't used in actual battles but are rather used to hose down towns of civilians. They're lovely as a weapon but great for spreading terror and misery. They generate outrage because their primary purpose is terrorizing civilians. Unlike, say, bullets they also tend to linger and pollute and area. It's safe to enter a place where people were shooting each other soon as those people leave. It's hard to tell when it's safe to reenter an area that was carpeted with chemical weapons. It might not ever really be safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
Whitlam posted:Ball gymnastics is cool. This wasn't what I thought it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 04:12
|
|