I adore Lindsey's performances, but I'm still trying to comprehend how anyone can think that a wispy flowing dress like that is best finished with pseudo-combat boots. It's just jarring.

I think @transmorpher is either being a little deceitful or has completely confused himself, so I'd just like to make a few points clear:

Dr. Neal Barnard is the person who said "plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking."

I can find no evidence of the WHO referring to Dr. Barnard's study or any other work. They certainly would not condone that statement because it is bullshit science as previously stated.

Dr. Barnard appears on the website Quackwatch which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Quackwatch is well respected, except amongst quacks.

To summarise, this means that he is quoting a study written by a known quack, and using the WHO statement on carcinogenic effect to support it. There is no scientific basis for using the WHO statement as confirmation of Dr. Barnard's quote about quitting smoking (see previous comment). It is Dr. Barnard who refers to the WHO, not vice versa.

It also means that there is only one person and study saying that it is more healthy to quit meat than smoking, as far as i can tell. Perhaps other studies say the same thing with different wording and I can't find it - but the onus is not on me to find the evidence, it is upon you to supply it.

To an extent, I agree, but if you're willing to bomb a school expecting mostly non combatant children to be the victims because someone made a model rocket there, you are the evil party in my eyes. Israel has no qualms about killing a hundred civilians to target a single combatant. That makes them the evil party to me.

Australia, or...maybe...Germany.
I get that it's a non starter today, but when Israel was being created, it would have made far more sense to give them part of Germany instead of the middle east, IMO. That said, yes, anywhere else would be preferable at this point, specifically somewhere they PAY for, not somewhere they simply take control over by force. As it stands, they have lost the moral high ground completely, and squandered much of the sympathy they were due after WW2 with their aggressive and completely non empathetic actions since.

...followed by a commercial for legal advice when you're the target of frivolous lawsuits, followed by a spot for a prescription drug to combat the stress of being counter-sued, followed by an ad for a class action lawsuit against fraudulent medical advertising, followed by Trump being president for ever and ever and ever and ever.

Wikipedia
"The combat side stroke is a relaxing and very efficient swim stroke that is an updated version of the traditional sidestroke. The CSS is a mix of sidestroke, freestyle and breaststroke. The combat side stroke allows the swimmer to swim more efficiently and reduce the body's profile in the water in order to be less likely to be seen during combat operations if surface swimming is required. The concept of CSS has been that it can be used with or without wearing swim fins (flippers), the only difference being that when wearing swim fins the swimmer's legs will always be kicking in the regular flutter kick motion without the scissor kick. This stroke is one of the strokes that can be used for prospective SEAL candidates in the SEAL physical screening test (PST), which includes a 500-yard swim in 12 minutes 30 seconds to determine if the candidate is suitable to go to the Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEAL school.

Basics

The combat side stroke utilizes the three main fundamentals of swimming:

Balance: There are two things that affect your balance in the water - the head and lungs. Most people when swimming, especially when using breaststroke, will swim with their head up[citation needed] which forces their hips to sink down which is like they are swimming uphill and is a sign of being less comfortable. However, if the body is flat/horizontal or more parallel to the water-line it is far more effective and will allow the swimmer to feel more comfortable in the water.
Length: The taller the person is, the faster the speed through the water. As a result, it is important that the swimmer is fully stretched horizontally in the water, as this will reduce the body's drag through the water and allow a higher speed.
Rotation: In most sports, such as baseball, when the batter swings the baseball bat they will rotate the hips to increase the power of the swing. The same principle is applied to swimming. If the swimmer engages the hips and uses the body's core muscles it will increase power."

You rather nailed it.

Are you sure? I couldn't find stats on injuries by gender, only attacks. Women can do some serious damage too, not that I'm disagreeing with you about average/normal outcomes.
If you're right (and I think it's likely that you are), that is a good reason to focus MORE on men, but not ONLY on men. In those 'mutual combat' situations, it's quite likely that women bear the brunt of most injuries, which is even more reason they should be taught to not hit first, if not simply because it's the right thing to do, then because they may get seriously hurt by someone defending themselves.

Had to reply on your profile, the video turned out to be a dupe so I couldn't just quote you.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

Yeah, modern-combat games are always pitting you against a caricature of the current political boggyman.

Even if it's not intentional, it's still manufacturing consent regarding political support for military interventions.

That said, a game's a game. COD was fun. Particularly 4 and 5.

-scheherazade

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

See this is just demonstrably false. The moment someone says, "Don't just kill the combatant, kill their parents and children and sisters and brothers." they become total and utter scum. There is absolutely no way someone running an unsecured e-mail server is worse than this. There is no way that some mistakes made leading to the murder of a handful of American ambassadors is worse than this.

Trump is scum. He has sullied his name and will never recover.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

Your neighbors---can you imagine if a cop gets called and has no idea that it's---play?

Anyway, it's the whole sense that I'm watching what infantry combat might actually have been like in that era (dull clunks; body blows; etc) that gives it a whole Game of Thrones/medieval fascination...