search results matching tag: Trapped

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (653)     Sift Talk (18)     Blogs (70)     Comments (1000)   

Born in the wrong species

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

newtboy said:

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

newtboy says...

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

harlequinn said:

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"?
.
.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.
.
.
What about home defense?

How Star Wars The Last Jedi Should Have Ended

notarobot says...

I think you misunderstand my opinion of TLJ here.

Had this video been used to build a script for TLJ, it would have been better than TLJ because ANYTHING would have been better.

As evidence, we can compare TLJ to a two-hour video of a garbage fire, and indeed, the garbage fire would have had better writing.

The movie was terrible.

If they were going to have vaudevillian humour in the opening scenes with Poe prank-calling Hux---while dozens of star destroyers with hundreds (thousands?) of fighters sit there idle----they may as well have gone full 'Snakes on a Plane' B-movie fan service and let Ackbar do the same thing with an "it's a trap" gag. But that wouldn't do, because that would involve some kind of consistency. And one thing I can't stand is scripts and characters in stories that contradict their own being.

e.g. Luke "I see good in the most evil villain of movie history" Skywalker considering killing his own nephew, because maybe he's too far gone. Darth Vader wasn't too far gone, but somehow the son of Leia and Han was? See how that kinda goes against Luke's character? There are a million ways they could have written the fall of Ben Solo into the dark side that didn't involve violating the essence of existing characters.

A garbage fire wouldn't have done that. A garbage fire would have known better.

TLJ was terrible movie that just happened to have the massive budget for some cool special-effects scenes and some A-list actors wasted on an awful script with a thin, scattered plot.

Now maybe TLJ is your favourite movie, and if so, whatevs. We just have different taste I guess. I'm not going to get into a flame war over a garbage-fire.

ChaosEngine said:

No, it wouldn’t. That’s the joke here. It’s pointing out how cliched and boring that would have been.

Don’t get me wrong, TLJ had its problems, but the obvious fan boy criticisms (Holdo, Luke, etc) are not the right ones.

Granted, this is all subjective.

ant (Member Profile)

44 Wild Hogs caught all at once

Millennials in the Workforce, A Generation of Weakness

HenningKO says...

The trap is assuming a particular individual belonging to a group shares all characteristics of the average member of the group. Or that a particular individual acts how they do because they are a member... that's fuckin' bigoted and ugly.

That said, I don't see why we can't generalize about a GROUP. In general, black people have a much tougher experience of this country than white people. In general, people born twenty years after me have a much different cultural, social and material experience than I did. In general, people of 100 years ago were way more outwardly racist than people of today. Are these generalizations unfair? They don't match every single member of the group, so should we stop trying to recognize broad cultural forces at work over time on large populations of people? You certainly are free to argue that any of the particular generalizations he made are inaccurate or even too dangerous to be spread, I saw a few... but to say that the act of generalization IN GENERAL is taboo...?

Historians 100 years from now won't hesitate to lump our primitive asses all together...

ChaosEngine said:

Honestly, I down-voted this for the title alone. The video isn't that terrible, but it falls into this bullshit "generation" trap.

Here's some facts:
baby-boomers? not a thing
Gen x? not a thing
Millenials? also... not a thing

These are all lazy, bullshit shorthand ways of lumping massive groups of people together based on the date they were born and conveniently, the problem is almost always either:
- those lazy kids or
- old people who had it easy.
Funny how the people writing these videos/articles almost never seem to blame their own generation.

FFS, stop generalising large groups of people like this. If you do it based on race, people (rightly) call you a racist. So why is it ok to do it based on age?

Newsflash: some "millennials" are lazy/entitled/whatever. Why? Because they're PEOPLE.

I've worked with "boomers" and "gen x" people who wouldn't know a work ethic if it punched them in the face and I've worked with "millennials" who work their damn asses off, only to find out (as @MilkmanDan pointed out) that companies these days generally give zero fucks about their employees.

Millennials in the Workforce, A Generation of Weakness

ChaosEngine says...

Honestly, I down-voted this for the title alone. The video isn't that terrible, but it falls into this bullshit "generation" trap.

Here's some facts:
baby-boomers? not a thing
Gen x? not a thing
Millenials? also... not a thing

These are all lazy, bullshit shorthand ways of lumping massive groups of people together based on the date they were born and conveniently, the problem is almost always either:
- those lazy kids or
- old people who had it easy.
Funny how the people writing these videos/articles almost never seem to blame their own generation.

FFS, stop generalising large groups of people like this. If you do it based on race, people (rightly) call you a racist. So why is it ok to do it based on age?

Newsflash: some "millennials" are lazy/entitled/whatever. Why? Because they're PEOPLE.

I've worked with "boomers" and "gen x" people who wouldn't know a work ethic if it punched them in the face and I've worked with "millennials" who work their damn asses off, only to find out (as @MilkmanDan pointed out) that companies these days generally give zero fucks about their employees.

Millennials in the Workforce, A Generation of Weakness

newtboy says...

Since you asked so respectfully.....
Taken one point at a time....
1)You are not a special, beautiful, unique snowflake everyone treasures. You are just part of the all singing all dancing decaying compost heap that is humanity. Your parents lied to you.
2) IMO, children under 18 shouldn't have smart phones at all, and should only be allowed to access a highly filtered social media if any at all. Both are highly destructive when misused, and children misuse things, especially when unsupervised as most are. I'm 47 and still don't indulge in either. (Unless the sift counts)
3) I actually think impatience is good....If paired with the drive to make what you want happen yourself and the intelligence to grasp the work required to make it happen and recognize your own abilities. Being impatient while expecting handouts should get anyone nowhere fast.
4) You escape the trap of being unrecognized by your jobs and easily discarded by having skills and making yourself invaluable, not by having no skills (or ubiquitous so worthless skills), social or otherwise, and just expecting advancement for attendance like your childhood.

I agree those he describes were dealt a bad hand....I disagree that this is unique to any one generation. We all had generational issues to overcome. That so many have failed to even attempt to overcome them to better their own lives and instead think the world at large owes them happiness, is at fault for not delivering, and must change to suit them IS a fault of their own, imo, contrary to the narrator's repeated assertions. It may be a flaw their parents fostered, but it's their own personality flaw now, no one else can fix it for them.

bobknight33 said:

@newtboy

Great sage of the Sift, What say you?

The Stone Age Tribe on a Banned Island You Can't Visit

newtboy says...

By "just fine" I meant surviving, which for natural animals as groups today is actually doing far better than most.

Is it a bad thing that there are no more stone age tribes? By my estimation, absolutely. I value diversity for many reasons, but mostly as a safety net against the totally unpredictable. For some unfathomable reason, something about being pure stone age might be advantageous.

I 100% agree about the option part, but offering them that option itself destroys their world viewpoint and eventually their civilization, proven time and time again with other tribes.

I honestly don't think there is a "right" answer, any course of action (or inaction) has it's own inherent dilemmas and moral traps. As a probable last example of unadulterated natural humanity, conservation seems to be paramount....but that's just like, my opinion man. ;-)

Edit: maybe I was over influenced by ' The Gods Must Be Crazy'....I thought clearly things were better without that coke bottle.

ChaosEngine said:

"they were doing just fine with stones"

Were they? What was the average life expectancy? How about childbirth mortality rates? Hell, how's their dental health?

Obviously, a bit of iron isn't going to fix those problems, but it might make them more efficient hunters. Maybe their diet has improved because of this?

"Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now"

Is that necessarily a bad thing? We had the stone age, we grew out of it.

I feel like it's easy for us to want to preserve their way of life, but no-one is giving them the option. If presented with a choice, most people wouldn't opt for a neolithic lifestyle. Even the so-called "paleo" adherents aren't really living that way.

I completely get where you are coming from, but part of me also feels like we are keeping humans in a zoo.

I honestly don't know what's the right answer.

Alan McSmith's Fearless Elephant Encounter.

Jane Sanders will be advising Bernie Sanders in2020 campaign

notarobot jokingly says...

Election 2020.

Title: A New Hope.

Slogan: “Hindsight is 2020.”

The rich will choose between voting for tax breaks for themselves, and tax increases and net neutrality. Unless they are rich because of NN, they will be able to afford the new high-prices for the internet to be open to them. They won’t care about NN.*

The poor will likely prefer the guy they can relate to the easiest.

Big words don’t draw a crowd of people who couldn’t afford university. The… undereducated voters will remember a lifetime of corporate media telling them “socialism is bad,” perhaps un-American. It will be difficult to convince this group otherwise. Indeed, “les deplorables” might (again) vote against their own best interests.

The middle class will be divided. Some will have been licking boots as hard as they can for a long time. These “senior boot-lickers” have been entrenched in the ideas of “capitalism” and are looking forward to their next promotion where they will finally get to have their own boots licked by the next chump below them. This sub-group will vote for tax cuts. There will be no promotion. Just a ribbon and thank-you card upon retirement.

The lower part of the middle class will fall for the trap that socialism is for commies. And “they’re not commies! They’re American!” They will vote for their own social security to be cut.

Finally, there is the group that remembers Debbie Wasserman Schultz—senior bootlicker, and professional lapdog—for her actions during the last election. They remember the emails. They remember how the Clinton Cash Club sowed corruption from within the party to stop the rise of a ‘so-called socialist’ outsider. This group will remember how Trump was handed the keys to the Oval Office after the party was fractured. They will fight hard to convince their neighbours not to vote against their own interests. They will be on guard for further corruption.

*Footnote: Among the ‘rich’ will be the ‘old establishment’ of the democratic party. Former Hillary supporters. This group will feel that their position of ‘corporate lapdog’ could be threatened by the prospect of a ‘socialist’ at the helm of their party. There will be an attempt to sabotage anyone who might upset that status quo from WITHIN the party. it has happened before. It will be attempted again. (DWS has not retired from her position on the bootlicker pyramid, and she has friends...)

Bonus: The Disney Princesses.

Now that the House of Mouse has 40% of all American media within it’s walls, you can bet that anyone who refuses to play ball wearing mouse-ears will have a harder time scoring. Just sayin’.

(And if NN is truly undone--you'll only ever see what 'they' want you to.)

2020 will be an interesting race.

I love my wife, I don't like men...stop touching me

Jinx says...

He loves his wife. Sometimes they touch. on special occasions. Occasionally.

No but seriously the sexuality of either is irrelevant, surely? I'm not wild about people I don't know well touching me either... but come on Daryl. Were you worried that if you didn't put a firm stop to the arm touching it might slide all slippery like down to more.. ha... intimate...p.places....Dear Lord Jesus grant me the strength to resist...

Sorry. Really seriously now though, I don't think is fair to gay peeps to always assume the homophobe is trapped in the closet. It's probably not that fair to make fun of the closet dwelling homophobe either - somebody else taught them to hate themselves...and somebody else is an asshole. I hope you're not an asshole Daryl.

The Untold History of EA's Long Pay-2-Win Love Affair



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon