You knew what was coming from the title so it wasn't a total shock at the end. But for all the production value and emotions, I'm conflicted about their message (I agree mass shootings or really any shootings are horrible).

See that kid over there, the loner that doesn't socialize well? Does he have any hobbies that could conceivably be used as a weapon against others? Bingo, possible mass shooter and candidate for reporting.

I looked all over their website to get a better idea of the exact message(s), but you have to sign up to receive via email any of their guides and I wasn't that dedicated.
I did see mentions of mental health, reducing bullying and the warning signs of violence, but then you hit the store with nail polish. Plus some of their stats don't even remotely add up.
"About 409 deaths occur every year from police intervention. Of these total yearly deaths about 17 of them will be 18 years or younger. This means about one death per day."

Hard to believe it happened 4 years ago though and the topic as a whole needs plenty of attention still.

They mix just fine.

If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice.

If one doesn't agree with the work conditions in those hospitals, don't work there (just like any other job).

Businesses don't have to offer all services. It is the business' choice, not the customers, what services they offer. Each and every medical procedure is a different service. E.g., in Australia, most private hospitals and small public hospitals don't offer emergency care in any substantive way. So if you self present with an acute injury that they don't provide care for, they will initiate transfer to another hospital.

If the patients life is in danger, the hospital will stabilise the patient and await medical transfer to another facility. This happens in both private and public hospitals every day. E.g. in general, smaller public hospitals don't offer obstetrics. You will be transferred to a larger public hospital. In the event that the procedure must be done stat, then all hospitals will give their best effort (including religious hospitals) to save the patient. It is basically the same in the USA.

Have you seen videos of a customer in a KFC screaming that they want their BigMac, with everyone staring in disbelief because that is a product KFC doesn't sell?

I am not questioning your credentials, your intent or anything like that.

And I understand that what you are saying is logically the best course of action for any individual, that being the one that doesn't result in the person being in a body bag.

But unfortunately things tend to not change unless blood is spilled and lives are lost. It's moments like these that shock people out of their complacency. I don't need to tell you this of course, you understand it explicitly already (eg. mentioning Stonewall, for example). Black lives matter started out of this, and while I disagree ideologically with their methods of whitewashing (pun intended) the stats to ignore black deaths at the hands of black perpetrators, I think generally it has at least focused the spotlight back on what is essentially acceptable racism, ie. that any person with black skin is a ticking timebomb of crime and we should all feel justified in treating them that way... = \

But even if you take out the element of standing up against a bad system, there is still that frustration that causes a person to eventually say "Fuck it...". And yeah, I agree, it's far better personally to just eat shit and wait for daylight, but I understand why someone who makes all the right moves and still get's treated badly will finally push back, despite the possibility of tragic consequences.

Well, I fully support the Black Lives Movement. Peaceful, and sometimes agitated, marching for justice. Gay Rights. That explosive moment at Stonewall in Greenwich Village, when the gay men fought back and said NO MORE.

Do I want a single woman who is in danger of being physically assaulted to "fight back?" A single gay man? A single black person? No, honey bunny, I absolutely do not. I think that is the height of idiocy for a single individual to fight back against one, two, three men. Especially when they are armed and have proven that they are capable of using that weapon in anger, fear, adrenaline.

Keep yourself safe, deescalate the situation if you can, submit to rape [edit] IF you think the man/men will kill you if you do fight back -- fight back if it is safe to fight back. (Interesting stat -- something like 90% of assaults against women are by single unarmed attackers. No gun? No knife? Try to avoid, try to deescalate, and if that doesn't work, fight back and yell and make yourself as difficult a target as possible.)

I took a self defense class years ago, geared towards women protecting themselves from violence by men. Not because I was afraid, but because of the psychological skills that we were taught about setting boundaries, taking charge, making choices -- skills needed in every day life that can also be applied to rare events of possible violence.

It was called Powerful Choices. Choices, my friend. Choices.

I must say, it is shocking to me that so many people live in a zero sum world. A black and white world. Where there is only one way to respond despite the actual circumstances. That this moment has to be used to fight larger battles or you are a failure.

I am a big fan of using your noggin to be safe. A fan of demonstrations (I prefer peaceful.) A fan of changing the laws, the procedures, the culture. A fan of acting strategically for the long run.

So you have me all wrong, my friend. All wrong.

@Mordhaus There are plenty of mentally disturbed people who will "resist" and provide enough fodder for the cellphones to keep the momentum going to clean up this mess we are in.

Don't resist, dude. Don't be a stat.

https://www.facebook.com/humansofnewyork/photos/a.102107073196735.4429.102099916530784/1383312675076162/?type=3&theater


(That guy lying on the ground wasn't being shot at, it was the other guy. What is so horrible about that particular situation was that the attendant was explaining the situation and he was ignored. You know because he was black. To me, that situation is the worst case of racism ever -- that a working black professional is not believed when he explains the situation.)

If we were talking about whole sale replacement of the waterway with 100% pure waste water from the pond you'd be on point.

The pond in the article held 250 Mgal.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3080/

The stats linked state that Florida groundwater usage in 2005 for drinking purposes alone was 4,242 Mgal per day, and another 2,626 Mgal per day was taken from surface water sources for drinking. So 250 Mgal as a one time release, of water with a very low radiation level already isn't going to hit that hard, nor linger around long enough to concentrate like in your scenarios.

I get it....no blame, or if there's blame I'll take it....(and I think that was a Harvard explanation of the WHO report, not a new study) I'm just saying that number is incorrect, and the numbers I quote came from the WHO themselves. Since it's their study we're discussing, it makes sense to take their stats, no?

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
There have been numerous two state solutions, starting with the British in 37.
The 48 U.N. plan was really a 3 state solution with Jerusalem under international control....so you're factually wrong, and clearly you can't have meant that when you say "2 state solution". The 2 state solution was proposed in 74. Also, the Nazis were gone in 47...so you're still wrong about 'standing with the Nazis' even if you meant the 3 state solution.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.

Edit: By any theory, it was a unified (at least peacefully living together) nation fractured by massive illegal immigration and an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. What if illegal Mexican immigrants claimed south Texas-California as a separate country, using the same reasoning? Would you support that? I wouldn't....and I doubt many would. To me, they have a better case to make, but still not a reasonable one.

Well I'm glad she added that Pokemon Go has a fairly reasonable model, I feel like that was the strong hand of Nintendo.

If you take away location differences, which there is a glaring issue with at the moment. Two players in the same reasonably supported area, the major difference in needing to spend money is how much you want to walk and that's the core of the game.

So if you want to play the game as designed (with no false limitations), you can generally play for free.

She's also not wrong that because of all that, I actually was inclined to make a purchase, it was small and I spent it on the non-expendable upgrades but I've been pretty anti-freeium in the past, so it was a big step for me to give such a game money.

I think Pokemon Go has certainly obliterated that 1-2% pay money statistic. I'm positive reports will eventually show it had a much higher stat.

It's not a saint, you can still gain a sizeable advantage by spending a lot of cash and these elements are still very much targeting the addiction of whales (expendable, short durations, element of luck with egg hatching). But it is a refreshing change for how they treat the "other" group of players.

You did it again, Bob. Nice misdirection.

We dont need to prove systemic racism, just a systemic inability to deal with ordinary, individual human racism, which is abundant. Also a systemic inability to deal with incompetence exacerbated by racism.

There is no need to demand all policemen to suddenly not be racist, that would be idealistic. But you can ask them to be trained, professional, unbiased, focused, and not kill innocent people.

Let us assume your stat below is correct. What do you think it means, I wonder? Because if you think of the blacks in the fist half of the sentence and the blacks in the second half of the sentence as one homogenous group, you may be considered a racist by some people.

The stat holds it own argument. Prove it wrong.

The last publicly worn Klan robe worn was a liberal at a Trump rally. Was that you?

Democrats are the party of the Klan. I'm not part of that.

Prove those stats wrong.

Prove that systemic racism exist in the police force.

Prove you point.