|
The notion that you should shoot someone in order to stop them from committing a crime is ludicrous. It's criminal. It's murder. Let them commit the crime and let the authorities catch them. If the authorities don't catch, fine. I'd rather you be short a few grand than some little kid lose a father. If you disagree you are a monster in my eyes. Shooting someone to stop a VIOLENT act is different. From a moral standpoint, fire away. But owning a gun for those purposes is beyond stupid. It increases the likelihood of you or your loved ones being killed or injured. Statistically there is no such thing as buying a gun for home protection.
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Miltank posted:A mugging is a violent crime. You're right. Let me clarify. Shooting someone to stop them from physically attacking or killing is okay. Any other reason is not. mdemone posted:Probably by accident we have cut to the root of it: does any entity, including the state, have the right to take a life when it faces a non-existential threat? The answer, for me, is no. I also regard anyone who disagrees here as a dangerous person in need of some serious help. Your STUFF isn't equal to someone else's LIFE. Period. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Funny, given the evident God complex and unhinged ranting, I was going to say the same about you Usually a rant goes on a little longer than a few brief lines of text. And it's certainly not a God complex to make moral judgements about others. It's called being human; we all do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
As fun as bashing on Amergin is, and as ignorant as his opinion on that NPR show is, I'm going to have to side with the folks saying that George Zimmerman is about as white as Frida Kahlo. So, uh, not white. He is not "visibly Caucasian" as one poster put it. He is, rather, visibly brown-skinned. Or we could go telling fans of Frida Kahlo to stop calling her a PoC because she's too pale and you might describe her as white hispanic to a 911 dispatcher.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Why the gently caress are people talking about the fact that they aren't responsible for their ancestors? Of course you're not - causality can't go backwards in time. But the government is responsible for its role and the government should pay. Where did this idea come from that reparations would mean you cutting a personal check to your black neighbor? It's an insane strawman.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I'm not sure flagging every instance of classism, racism, etc. is necessarily a good idea
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Illinois Senate passed the ERA yesterday, it now goes to the House. Given that the house ratified it in 2003 and George Ryan spiked it, it probably has a good shot. That would put it at 36 if the 38 states needed to ratify. I went to look up the ERA to see what in particular is controversial about it. This is the full text: quote:Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. So. I'm still confused. I thought that even most republicans would agree that women and men deserve to be treated equally under the law. What's the deal?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Money enables speech. Saying that restricting spending doesn't restrict free speech is like saying that outlawing paying for a lawyer doesn't infringe criminal defense rights. In that case, poverty restricts free speech even more. By that argument, allowing poverty to exist is unconstitutional. The state thus has a duty to provide to each individual enough funds to allow them to speak their mind on billboards, TV ads, or whatever else we would be restricting with campaign finance laws.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
My grandma just died this year. She worked radar stations in Germany in the war. She always told me about her two brothers who died. The older died on the eastern front when the allies bombed the hospital he was in. The younger was a pacifist who was drafted as a teenager at the end of the war and sent straight to the front without training. Got shot just days after turning 18. Everyone knew the war was over at that point but they sent him anyway. What an awful business.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:
"It's been disappointing to watch a long-serving former senator, like Secretary Kerry, squirm his way to what I'm doing today — releasing him from the upcoming hearing commitment he made only after we issued him a subpoena." What the christ. I'm so disappointed watching the secretary get subpoenaed by me and then get released by me.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 20:57
|
|
Darryl Issa decides to not accept Kerry's acceptance of Darryl Issa's subpoena to show up at his poor mans Benghazi committee
|
richardfun posted:The difference with ancient Rome at least is that back then, if you were a rich rear end in a top hat and wanted to make it big in politics, you pretty much had to serve in the legions. Nowadays, chickenhawks can just get a deferement (by making GBS threads their pants at the recruitment office, for instance), send the poor's children to war and cheerlead from a safe distance... Yes, this. And leading an army in war was a good way to get rich, too. And even in medieval times, the rich were expected to be the ones who would fight to protect the poor. Now, the fighting wasn't particularly likely to be fatal for them with their big fancy suits of armor and the fact that the enemy would rather capture and ransom them than kill them... but at least they were expected to fight. When wealth and position was primarily inherited, the idea was that your role as a rich person was to protect and serve your country. That was how you would justify having what you had. When we started thinking of wealth as something earned through work or business, you didn't have to justify why you were wealthy - it was already earned by definition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Their argument appears to be "Now we're loving over our employees in a different way. What are you going to do about it?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 03:45
|
|