Capitalism (or the slow demise of feudalism, serfdom, slavery, bigotry and the middle ages in general) made science and progress possible.

It is a common misconception that rights and freedoms are useful in their own right. Its really up to individual people what they do with what they get.

Socialism is a step back because it tries to tell you what you should and should not do, thus limiting your freedoms and possible progress. There should always only be as much socialism as is morally acceptable.

Not one of them would even notice if you took half their money away and cooked the books so the numbers looked the same.

They can still buy megayachts, private jets, mansions all over the world with 20 billion instead of 40.

In fact, many studies have shown that they would actually be happier if much of their money was taxed away. To most of these people money is an addiction. It's as destructive as most other addictions, driving family and friends away, ruining relationships, and isolating the individual with the addiction. More money will never make them happy for long, it will only make them want even more to get that sweet dopamine hit.

I say if they've got Billionaires this upset they must be doing something right!

Classic....sounds like a meth rant.

"The point that misses the mark regarding quality, is the voices on the stroll through recordings. This specific voices are extremely the individuals they sound mechanical while much in the event that they are perusing from being a content. So when you want great outcomes with these recordings you will need to record specific voice overs. Furthermore, true to form they do give you the transcripts pores and skin recordings and demonstrate you to make the voice overs."

*ban

"These things happen all the time."
To bargain on behalf of the country, yes.
To bargain on behalf of an individual, immoral.
To bargain on behalf of an individual's political campaign to help in an upcoming election, illegal.

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

If the left didn't care about people getting shot and killed, why would they care about guns? Duh.

99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities?!
Site your source.....I know you can't, you flushed already. The actual number is 40-<60% of those convicted of illegal shootings admit they used illegally obtained guns, the number varying by state, higher where laws deny violent convicts the right to own them, lower when they can. As to your ridiculous 99% Democratic city claim, you're just repeating a long ago debunked lie from a failed Republican candidate 5 years ago. Here's some data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago
Note how many Republican led cities are worse than Chicago.

99% are non NRA members? Maybe, but >99.5% of Americans are non NRA members, most NRA members quit the organization decades ago like I did, but are still listed as "members". Since most americans aren't members, actually the NRA gave a pitch to prospective sponsors in which it said that about half of its then-4 million members were the “most active and interested.” (the other 2 million are often dead members, ex members, or those given free but unwanted memberships with a purchase) so there MAY be 2 million, but that's likely still a massive overestimate, meaning using their own numbers, active NRA members are far more likely than the average person to murder with a gun IF your 1% guess is right (and there's absolutely no way to know, those statistics aren't kept).

Yes. Mass terroristic attacks with or without guns get more attention than individual personal attacks. Odd, you think that's proper if it's not a right wing terroristic attack, like most today are.
Suicides account for >60% of shooting deaths but get zero coverage. Why not whine about that?

Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?

2017 had nearly 40000 gun deaths, the highest since 1968.

Honest question. What is the distinction between trans-gender and trans-race?

At least in Canada we are rapidly building into law not merely protections for gender identity, but legal requirements for others to also recognize/embrace people's chosen gender identities(forgive me, I know at least in Canada choice is the wrong word but I'm mentally lapsing on a better one).

Yet, trans-race is still dealt with as a joke, with the trans-race individuals an acceptable target of ridicule.

My own opinions don't sit as far out on the left, but watching those that are content with both declaring trans-gender identity an inalienable fundamental right to the extent that MtF athletes must be allowed no matter how clearly their 'choice' was biased by getting to be #1 in their sport., but then ridiculing anyone claiming trans-race is hard for me to reconcile.

Anybody else able to provide a rational difference between the two? It looks to me like an entirely subjective I agree with one but not the other thought process, but maybe that's just my ignorance?

@BSR

I already donate regularly to my local children's hospital, give any spare change I have to people you describe, and work at an inner city school where I keep boxes of cereal (it's cheap and vitamin packed and the kids like it) because my students come up to me on a somewhat regular basis hungry.

But as an individual, it's easy to act alone. To combat what one considers bad-public-policy, one must join the conversation.

What are you really asking me to do here? Someone posts some racist memes and I'm to keep my mouth shut because it won't do anything. I do not agree.

I can act alone, but to change policy it starts by having conversations about perceived ills in society. Forgive me but keep your stoic silence to yourself and I'll keep talking if the spirit moves me.

@BSR

I already donate regularly to my local children's hospital, give any spare change I have to people you describe, and work at an inner city school where I keep boxes of cereal (it's cheap and vitamin packed and the kids like it) because my students come up to me on a somewhat regular basis hungry.

But as an individual, it's easy to act alone. To combat what one considers bad-public-policy, one must join the conversation.

What are you really asking me to do here? Someone posts some racist memes and I'm to keep my mouth shut because it won't do anything. I do not agree.

I can act alone, but to change policy it starts by having conversations about perceived ills in society. Forgive me but keep your stoic silence to yourself and I'll keep talking if the spirit moves me.

True, because any honest answer wouldn't back your stance, and I don't find lies satisfactory.

You can't name a foreign country that illegally helped Clinton, yet you can't admit that you were making up accusations without evidence, so instead you offered a few individuals hoping we wouldn't notice they aren't countries? Then you claim you intentionally gave a b.s. answer because I wouldn't accept any answer? Who's emotionally biased in a way that precludes reason again?

Lol. With the great divider in office, you would complain that Carter is the bad guy because he didn't keep silent about Trump's illegitimacy? It is to laugh.

But, without exception, that is EXACTLY what religions teach, that only those who believe correctly are correct and thus deserving of the supernatural rewards. It's how they excuse proselytizing, often with force. Can you name a real religion that says "we are the proper way to God, but other ways are just as valid."? (And I don't count individuals stating that, only the written texts that codify the beliefs).

Yes, we do treat those other people with disdain, those of us who don't buy into one or more flock that is.

They can't see through the hypocrisy and idiocy because religion/churches demand you not question your religious leaders, absolutely do not think for yourself. Don't try to interpret your dogma for yourself. Doing that leads directly to excommunication or much worse.

None of this is exclusive to Christianity, but in European/American culture it is most prevalent there.

Side question: What good has religion done that could not have been done better without it? Be specific please, with examples.

*lies

Even if the plight of this individual bear was misrepresented, this still sounds like some climate change denialism.

Dishonest stating it in a way that strongly implies he was kicked out for his opinion, and hides from the fact it was for speaking out repeatedly, disruptively.
That's a lie by obfuscation.

Did you even watch it?
The teacher was clear, he was kicked out for continuing to argue after being allowed to state his opinion...a right he did not have but a privilege he was granted. That is disruptive, as is requiring individual attention a second time to discuss the same thing.

He was kicked out for repeating his opinion, disrupting class and the teacher.

The issue is being disruptive in class, thinking his uninformed opinion should shout down an informed one from the teacher, an opinion held by the school board and codified in the rules of conduct.

Regardless of what the douchebag kid thinks on this matter, he has no right to disrupt the class by debating policy.
The kid is free to think, but not to disrupt class. He may express his thoughts....at home or in open public forums, not class.

If you defy school policy, expect to reap the rewards of being removed from school and all that comes with that. Duh. Challenge, sure, appropriately, in appropriate venues and times, like a school board or PTA meeting, not during class. If you wish to challenge it inappropriately and disruptively, don't think standing on the right to speak gives you immunity from other rules or repercussions. That's not how it works. It's not an absolute right....I'll prove it, go argue gender in a federal court that's in session, see how long you remain standing and unincarcerated. Better yet, go argue something not insanely pro Trump at a Trump rally, see how many teeth you have in the morning...If you see morning.

So, the argument is two fold.
One, this issue of personal freedom/choice is important enough that it can't be left to states who might eliminate individual choice in favor of a state's choice. This is the liberal position on this issue, that states will take the choice away from individual woman in favor of the choice made for them, usually by groups of old men. That's why Roe V Wade is essential, it denies the states the right to enslave women to their unwanted, potential, in some cases forced upon them, offspring.

Second, he argued we can't allow laws that take away the freedom of individuals to choose, which slavery did...as do anti abortion laws. You cannot crush the choices of another person....this includes the choice to not be an incubator for another "person" (to misuse the word, assuming they're incorrectly insisting a blastocyst or foetus is a person, all medical and scientific evidence notwithstanding). The "developing life" (doesn't realize he just blew the "life starts at conception" argument with that phrase) cannot take away the rights of the womb's owner, cannot make them a slave to the blastocyst/foetus. The right to life argument fails when you realize no person is forced to donate blood or organs, which people need to live. Real right to life would extend beyond birth and require people become medical slaves to those who need them or their parts.

If it can live without help, fine, develop an abortive processes that allows that at any point in pregnancy, fund it across the board, and start the debate again. Until then, this dumbass just made two arguments for pro choice.
Pathetic.

Forgiven? Absolutely not. Forgiveness without any indication of remorse is acceptance, and his actions were and are unacceptable.
30+ years ago. I would bet he doesn't remember it, seemed like a normal everyday thing for him to violently threaten someone's life, then threaten their safety and freedom if they dared to complain.
It also seemed that he accepted zero responsibility for his mistake or actions, like most cops, something his superiors obviously agreed with. It was somehow my fault he misread my clean license plate, so what would he have to regret?

I learned that day that it's not just individual bad cops, it's top down criminality and disdain for citizens.

Anger and mistrust are proper when you've been abused and threatened and had your trust violated violently....more so when the system totally fails to address it.

If he's Moby, I'm Queequeg, not Ahab. I learned police are dangerous, dishonest, and filled with contempt for those they're duty bound to protect and serve. I didn't turn my life into a vendetta against them, but I sure as fuck know sperm whales are dangerous and will ruin your entire day, and should be avoided when possible and never trusted.