That's great. I never knew people actually went around stealing peoples packages, but I guess... of course they would~!

This turned out the best way I think. Perpetrators caught; no one hurt in the exchange.

Likely because race discrimination is something that lost acceptance generally a long time ago, and LGBTetc discrimination is still quasi-acceptable. I'd say that anyone who lives through a period of acceptance of the previously unacceptable experiences the dissonance between the old way of thinking vs the new.

Think about the reaction to a white guy calling someone a nigger in public vs a faggot (depending on where they do it of course). One would get a much stronger reaction than the other despite the fact they they are both offensive.

And I do tend to agree with the general cut of your post, I'd guess that most people would see discrimination against race as black and white (no pun intended), ie. it's not allowed under any circumstances, whereas discrimination re: sexuality is more of a grey (or rainbow) area.

Ultimately though, it's not like refusing to serve a disorderly customer, or refusing to employ a convicted felon. Those people are judged by the choices they make, not by who they are in the core of their being.

I really hate big government and PC bullshit, but I'm a huge fan of equality for all in the hopes of getting to a place where you don't need to legislate acceptance of people for who they are, it's just a default setting. But since that's usually a generational change, if a government is going to have anti-discrimination legislation that means anything, it should actually be across the board.

Shaved mine off after 7 years. My wife, similarly, had not seen me without it. Jeez, what a reaction; "I hate it". "I don't think I can love you any more". I said; " would you still love me if I was paralyzed or lost a leg or something?" She said; "Of course I would, but that's different". It started off mildly amusing, but ended with me seeing a side of her previously unknown. I grew it back, but something had changed in me forever.

Oh go fuck yourself you old cuntbag.

If @lantern53 told you wait quietly in his cruiser while he fucked your wife and daughter, would you comply?

Of course you would. You must obey all cops, always.

..You'd probably even give him the reach-around as a thank you for "years of loyal service".

Seriously, you two should just go ahead and blow each other..

Cause you definitely already got a circle-jerk goin' on here.

"Hey Buddy, wanna disparage some minorities with me?!"

'Fuck yeah, buddy. Let me get my badge and gun! You can help me falsely arrest someone for "trespassing"... '

Well they were both white so of course it would have been "good riddance".

trickle down has been the prevailing economic policy for the last thirty years and it does not work. This is also the same time period that the middle class has been disappearing not just the last 6 years.

Carter and Clinton are the last two presidents to have budget surpluses. Republicans preach about being fiscally responsible, but the record shows they aren't. Had we followed Carters course, we would be energy independent and it's possible we would have avoided wars with Iraq twice and Afghanistan. Think of what we could have done with all the money that would have been saved. Trillions of dollars.

What a great bunch of second graders They certainly seemed to enjoy themselves, and were perfect guests. Of course, $220 would feed my whole family for a week, even if I fed them some similar foods!

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

Of course it would have been Sifted already... *promote

They sold 567 of the $350 version over the weekend, which combined with other ship sales made $1.3 Million during the weekend, up for the normal $40k a day... Their total now is over $51 Million. All for a game that you can't really play yet. You can walk around your hanger, you can engage in simulated dogfights and capture the flag, and in a couple weeks a couple select ships will be able to do a race. Of course I would love to have a 300i... The game does have potential. Elite Dangerous is pretty much delivering on much of that right now, but SC can be great if it delivers on all they say they will.

>> So if it was a friend who was down on his luck and desperate to get some quick cash, you wouldn't give a shit that he got run over because he acted impulsively and did something stupid?

That's correct. Things not specific to that but along those lines have happened in my life, and that was my reaction.


>> Or how about if you saw this happen on the street. You wouldn't call an ambulance because the guy got was coming to him?

There you go again mixing up not feeling sorry for someone with thinking he deserves it. Of course I would call an ambulance. I would very likely even rush over to try and help. I wouldn't *want* the guy to get maimed or killed. But if he did that to himself I'd just feel it's his own fault.


>> I call that basic human compassion.

That's where we differ. I don't.

A few days ago a team of heavily armed gunmen robbed a bank. Afterward they were involved in a chase and gunfight with police. One of the three robbers was shot dead and the others were injured.

Do you feel sympathy for the robbers? I'm sure you must. Do I? No, I don't, not even a little bit.

Not every negative event (that results in pain/suffering) in every single person's life is precious, nor does it warrant or deserve compassion when they intentionally caused it themselves and it could have been completely avoided.


Let's just call it a difference in philosophy.

@newtboy

On definitions, I recall a clip from The Atheist Experience where they made the distinction that while a/theism relates to what you believe, a/gnosticism relates to what you know. Colloquially it's all a bit of a wash but I think it's a good framework for outlining a specific belief.

You could be gnostic atheist, professing certain knowledge of no gods. Alternatively you could be an agnostic atheist, profession to not be able to know but choosing to believe in the lack of a god. Or you could be a gnostic theist, presuming to know by certainty that there is a god, although of course you would also be an atheist unless you believed religions coexisted simultaneously.

EDIT - D'oh, someone already said it.

I'm an introvert, and of course I would draw it facing the right direction to be read by others. Otherwise people would have to ask why I had a backwards Q on my forehead, and that would be humiliating.

Well, guess again. I, actually, have two beautiful grown up girls. And, of course, I would like to think that I would die for them. But It is, frankly, rather silly and naive of you to assert that only the "shitty, self-absorbed," would not. My point, is that it is easy to say "I would die for my kids," when you are safe in the almost certain knowledge that, thankfully, you will never have to.

That's basically how it's been done with gerrymandering for a while so it's not exactly new. Needs to be abolished, but the question then becomes, how do you draw district lines fairly. Of course this would be an easier question if there was no parties


The implication here though is that the Republicans PLANNED to shut the government down from the start.