It always amazes me whenever someone says they want a gun "for protection".

The U.S. is not the wild west anymore; I've been there several times and no one shot me, shot at me or even pointed a gun at me.

In NZ, if you want to buy a gun, you have to apply for a firearms license. If you don't have mental illness or a criminal record, you then state your reason for applying:
Hunting? Sweet, get some venison!
Target shooting? Awesome, have fun on the range!
Protection? Licence denied. We're all good without amateur idiots running around being paranoid.

Because of this, if you have a gun it is legally required to be secured in a gun safe. As Jim Jeffries puts it, a gun in a gun safe isn't much good if you want it for "protection"
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control

I honestly would have chosen the silver bar. If there wasn't a camera crew there, I wouldn't take either, because I'd just think the silver was stolen and would be paranoid about taking it. But since there was a camera crew, I would think it's some kind of gimmick, and they expect everyone to take the Hershey's.
I probably wouldn't sell the silver or get it appraised, just keep as a souvenir.

"People choose to be polygamous" means people what polygamy? A-they are born that way? B-it just happens? Or C-Hrm, lets see...they must LEARN it. You specifically compared it with being born gay versus choosing (ie., learning something and then choosing it.) Whether this was intentional or not is...irrelevant...

Second, most of the stuff was meant to be irrelevant to the content but also explaining why I hate moral connotations from judgmental assholes. You twist that as though I related it to the video or used it directly against your argument--which I did not. If you didn't understand this, I am not sure how to spell out something so obvious, especially to someone as well-learned as you Chaos. Even if you didn't twist it, your constant poking at it was irrelevant to the argument, and makes your argument seem very petty.

Furthermore, the definition of monogamy is crafted in the best possible light for those "practicing it." They can sugar coat the shit all they want, but it's still shit. Basically they took the most convenient definition they could find and applied it. Remember, I said, "You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine." Keyword, "that's fine." So yeah, I agreed in a way that the common definition accepted by others is as you said--don't correct bullshit that didn't need correcting.

Lastly, Rome was an example of how history affects perception. Nothing paranoid about that. I think its bullshit, but it happens. It would be like saying that people hate persecution of Jews because of Nazis. In fact Israel can abuse Palestinians these days exactly because of the past. @newtboy was damn right about child rape and didn't need to use sarcasm. Yeah, Rome/Greece had some good and bad, absolutely. But all in all they were hated as a greedy, mass-murdering peoples who brought hell to their vanquished.

Damnit, I had written a long response addressing your points, but it got lost somehow and I can't be bothered typing it all out again.

Basically, your arguments are all either irrelevant or wrong.
Definition of monogamy? Widely accepted as one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
Romans / Greeks? Irrelevant, paranoid, and wrong. (They had good and bad stuff).
Circumcision? Irrelevant.
Polygamy is learned? I never said that.
Monogamy is inconvenient for "damn near everyone"? Patently false. Also irrelevant... what does the convenience or otherwise of monogamy have to do with anything?

Good, so we can agree on the one possible reason for him not being shot could have been racial bias (scrawny white kid). Cool.




As for the rest:

"
- the Civil War wasn't about Slavery..
"

Propaganda is real. Believing everything you're told by a government authority who has the power to control information, and who has a vested interest in drumming up nationalism, is naive. Particularly when that authority's actions so often throughout the history of events in question have not matched their words.

I would only ask you this :
How many of your neighbors today (of any race) do you think would willingly die _for you_, a stranger to them, for _any_ reason?
How many white people do you think would have died _for you_ back then? (I use "for you" because you earlier indicated that you are black, so the question is meant to be answered not rhetorically, but actually from your perspective)
Does it make sense that the civil war was out of the goodness of white people's hearts, or does it make more sense that white people had a score to settle with one another?
Do you really think that primary schools are telling the absolute unbiased truth about the civil war (particularly given that the north got to dictate the curriculum after victory)?

My point here has nothing to do with any opinions of black people. It is squarely to do with distrust of government as an institution combined with government's history of white washing is own actions after the fact. Don't conflate the two.




"
- that white people are treated just as poorly as black people (sometimes)..

[...]

Like I said before. Fuck off with that..
"Well, cops are mean to ME TOO!!" bullshit.
"

Why would I not assert that [*some*] white individuals are [at times] treated just as poorly [or poorer] as [*some*] black [individuals]? (to be stated precisely).

Your command that I not mention harms done to whites makes it sound like you don't think those harms are worth mentioning. Maybe because you think they are not real or meaningful?

There are plenty of police brutality videos on this site depicting injury and murder of white people at the hands of police.

Do dead white people get to come back to life, because they aren't black, and so their gun shot wounds obviously aren't as bad?

Or those that went to jail for 'assaulting a police officer' after a cop beat the crap out of them, do they get to rewind their lives and get their squandered time [and reputation/job] back, because they aren't black?

Like I said, I agree that black people get fucked with more than white people - but I don't deny the suffering of anyone, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as to assume that 'it's all about me'.

In essence, being targeted more often, is not the same as being the only target.

The general problem I see with LE (that affects everyone), is the government's (police are the executive branch) lack of obedience to the 14th amendment, giving themselves privilege to harm the state (in a republic, citizens are the state) whenever their agents personally whim so.

That's a separate issue from LE officers more often using their privilege on blacks than on whites - which as I stated, is also real issue in and of itself.

Fixing this disregard for the 14th amendment would encompass everyone, so 'we're all in it together' in this regard.





"
- that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between cops arresting a MASS fucking MURDERER WITHOUT INCIDENCE..

And murdering 12 year old Tamir Rice for wielding a BB-GUN!

Is that Rice pointed a "realistic-looking" gun at cops.
"

I never even mentioned anything about this.

Was that the difference? Was it actually that Rice pointed a real looking fake gun at a cop, while this recent white kid didn't?
(I don't actually know)

If that really is the difference, then I guess I can see why the one pointing a gun at the cop would get shot by a cop.
...
Although, I suspect that the black kid never pointed a gun at anyone, and the cop lied about it, and the cop just shot the kid 'just in case' (because that's what cops do when they feel even remotely in danger, because they're trained to be paranoid and afraid of everything, and to place their own safety first and foremost). And I suspect that cops would have liked to do the same in this recent case, but their departments are probably afraid of drawing more negative attention to the police.
But, that's just my suspicion. I wasn't there.




In this recent case, what was the connection between the white kid and the church he attacked? Was it random, or did he pick it for a reason? (actually asking, not some veiled statement)

-scheherazade

damn newtboy, paranoid much?

Of course FIFA is shady as hell just like the IOC, but weird about how the FBI and DOJ became involved. Kinda seems like the gist of their argument is that if you use the US dollar (which ultimately must pass through a US bank), that makes you subject to US law enforcement.

Since everyone knew FIFA was corrupt, the paranoid conspiracist part of me wonders if this isn't a ploy to set a precedent for its own sake or as a prelude to something else.

Diseasecausing , fecal and other bacteria are literally EVERYWHERE. They get on to everything we eat and drink, the stuff we touch.. everywhere. They are however pretty harmless in small quantities.

For instance, I'd probably worry more about using an Iphone, and then touching the rim of the glass afterwards. If you wanna get paranoid about it, try microscoping a swab from the glass of your phone touchscreen. thats the dirtiest place on earth.

Our bodies have evolved to live in dirty environments, so dont worry too much about it. wash your hands and do the normal hygiene stuff, and you probably wont die from fecal bacteria.. Just order a strong drink and wait for the alcohol to kill it

@billpayer
you are proceeding from a false premise.
nobody is singling you nor your video out for suppression.
which many here have tried to point out to you.
quite politely i might add,but you insist on some weird conspiracy.

do you identify with a video so much that a downvote is somehow directly related to how that sifter perceives you? and that by downvoting they are suppressing your right to free speech and making a social commentary simultaneously?

dude...you need to think this through,because you are coming across extremely paranoid.

by the way...
/speaks in hushed tones..
*it was @newtboy that shot JFK,and martin luther king AND my childhood dog poochie.damn you newtboy! damn you to hell!

From this week's issue of The New Yorker:


Shouts & Murmurs February 16, 2015 Issue
Diary of the Left Shark
By Kelly Stout




A remarkable feat of agility was performed on Sunday night, and it had nothing to do with football. It was the sharks. . . . The dancing sharks at Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show . . . danced in unison. But soon, one of the sharks, specifically Left Shark, said enough of that, and began to do his own thing frenetically on national television.

—Washington Post.

First rehearsal went great. Katy says to just call her “Katy”—very down-to-earth move. Happy to see Eric! Grateful he got me this gig, as not a lot of work out there for us sharks.

Second rehearsal O.K. Eric picking up dance moves faster than me, which is no biggie, since I’m still getting over quad injury. Still, resolving to work harder. Went for a beer afterward with dancing Blue Surfboard, named Jeremy. He’s worked with Miley Cyrus!

Eric texted wanting to know if I could use some “extra practice.” Didn’t think I needed “extra practice,” but Eric = good buddy, so I value his input. Couldn’t meet him, though, had book club.

Eric acting high and mighty in rehearsal—keeps referring to himself as “old veteran.” Feel he should turn it down a notch. Super Bowl halftime show is not a combat situation, and metaphor makes no sense.

Rehearsal rough tonight. Eric called my grasp of choreography “amateurish.” Said he did big favor by recommending me, and now worried Katy won’t hire him again. Said work must be “on a professional level” with “zero tolerance for mistakes.” I told him I was sorry to have disappointed, that my work will be “professional level” from here on out. Went to bathroom and cried into fins, but no one saw except Jeremy, who was very understanding. J says Katy makes a lot of people crazy—just ask Russell Brand! Found joke to be a little sexist—and, besides, Katy not really the problem—but appreciated support.

Katy took me aside after rehearsal. Uh-oh. But no! Said she likes seeing my extra effort! On verge of major breakthrough vis-à-vis choreography!

Happy to have long weekend off from rehearsal to regroup. Guy at brunch overheard me talking about current gig and asked if I am a real shark! Of course I’m a real shark! Tried not to be offended, but people can be so ignorant.

Back at rehearsal. Things steadily better, but sometimes feel Eric = competitive with me, since so few of us sharks in the industry. But shouldn’t that bring us closer? (Rising tide lifts all sharks!)

Big day almost here. Grandma and Mom both called to say everyone back home’s rooting for me. Pressure, but in a good way.

Eric recommended some changes to choreography today. Katy considers Eric “genius,” so took recommendations. Feel my success with old choreography hard won, so am disappointed. This time, Eric didn’t offer any “extra help.”

More dance changes today! Can’t keep up, and Eric can tell. Hate to sound paranoid, but worry that Eric’s trying to sabotage me! Going to have a glass of Shiraz to relax before practicing new moves.

Regret drinking entire bottle of wine last night. Skipped rehearsal, which I realize is not “professional level” behavior, but Eric and his “zero-tolerance policy” can suck it.

Embarrassed by last diary entry. Eric is not sabotaging me. Am letting my insecurities get in way of friendship.

NOPE. ERIC’S DEFINITELY TRYING TO SABOTAGE ME. Super Bowl is tomorrow and he changed dance moves AGAIN. Trying to make a fool of me. Unsure which makes me sadder, potential end of dance career or potential end of friendship.

Super Bowl over. Grandma and Mom called to remind me that my personal best was all they ever asked for. Am laughingstock of Internet. Gained hundreds of Twitter followers, but suspect most are “joke” follows. Katy sweet about it.

Jeremy invited me to have a beer with him and other Surfboard. Frankly, feel that other Surfboard’s kind of a blowhard, so declined.

Got voice mail from Mom this morning asking if I’m considering going back for teaching degree. Said I’m “good with kids” and not end of world that dancing didn’t work out. Ouch.

Jeremy brought over falafel last night and made me forget Super Bowl debacle with impression of Taylor Swift. Didn’t know Jeremy = T.S. fan! Promised I wouldn’t tell Katy. Not that I’ll be working with Katy again anytime soon.

Text from Eric wanting to know how I’m “holding up.” Chose not to say anything, as had nothing nice to say.

Jeremy joining book club! Silver lining of Super Bowl ordeal.

Downloaded application to Columbia Teachers College. Think I could maybe make a difference in lives of youth, plus get mind off Super Bowl. Jeremy, Mom, and Grandma all supportive. Mom asked if Jeremy just a friend or what. Her ideas re male friendship pretty “stone age,” but appreciate her interest.

Feeling O.K. about future. Dance world maybe too toxic for shark like me. Perhaps whole episode not humiliation but wake-up call! Considering move to Austin. ♦

That's why I don't recommend it to anyone who isn't paranoid about traffic. Even in my car, I check for red-light runners before going through any intersection (from a stop, anyway). I once heard a story about some lady getting ticketed in such a collision, when she was the one with the green light. Maybe the story is untrue, but everyone is responsible for safe traversal of an intersection. Just because you "had the right of way" doesn't mean you couldn't have prevented a collision with a little extra care.

This particular paranoid, vitriolic, and insulting ranting is sounding overtly familiar. Is this who I think it is?

^
Hand out, not bail out.
Wow, that's some completely wrong, paranoid right wing insanity after your first mistaken sentence. All of it, every word.

Well, I think you were rude (and more than a little condescending) with this "pointing out where you made your mistake in logic..." bullshit.

I don't see anything you said, or that the cop did, that "proved" his "ulterior motives" in this video. You are coming off like a paranoid nutjob imo. You haven't said anything to make my "theory" not hold up.

In any event, I'm getting this whole "don't feed the troll" vibe with you lately. So maybe I'll follow that instinct now.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe you are Professor X and telepathically know the ulterior motives of all police at all times.

You "claimed" the guy not answering questions is being an asshole. I explained why his actions, while rude in normal society, are not rude but prudent.
You posited a theory about the cop's motives (edit: in wording that sounds as if you were stating facts, not a theory). I explained how his actions proved his ulterior motives, not that your theory was impossible because cops never help others. I understood the point of view well enough to see he would not have continued if he were actually "just helping" once he saw no help was needed or wanted, you missed that.
You got rude and called me a lonely paranoid newt constantly spouting bullshit! Hmmmm......

I'm all for exploring differing theories about how a scenario went down.
I'm not for being insulting to the person that points out that your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny instead of either realizing the theory was wrong in the first place, or delineating why it's not wrong. THAT'S just ridiculous! ;-)