"you'll get judged by the actions of the minority that don't practice up to date strict gun safety"

Bullshit. Guns. Are. Dangerous. Period. Yes, I said it. And yes, they are more dangerous if you handle them recklessly, of course, but they are dangerous anyway, thats the whole point. Most gun accidents happens to people who normally DO practice strict gun safety, its just that people make fucking mistakes. ALL THE TIME. Thats the thing. You can, and will, also make mistakes with knifes, hammers and axes, but that probably wont instantly kill you, or someone 50 meters away from you. A gun might. Because they are fucking dangerous.

The technology for firearms exist, they will always exist now. If someone truly was willing and dedicated to kill people with a gun, they will. You can make a gun with the right materials, though obviously not the same craftsmanship as a manufacturer.

I can totally see how banning guns can save lives: If a parent, or roommate, etc, owned a gun, and someone who knew that completely legal gun was able to be reached and used to kill innocent people. Then yes, banning guns would have stopped that. But if they are, then there's a small line that guy needs to cross: to reach out to whoever to find an illegal weapon.

I for one believe they should be legal, and I also believe that if someone wants to own one, they do their damned homework and train in the ways of a gun, that would save more lives than anything else. Reckless use of a gun is stupid and deadly to the gun owner him(her)self. Would be like a knife wielding junkie going against a samurai, if you do not know how to handle a gun, or handle being under pressure, you are the junkie.

>> ^yellowc:

Honestly? Good. Don't park on clearways right near the time, sorry but that seems like a no brainer, you should be gone before the time (even 5-10mins before). Not on it or a little after it, before it. The most frustrating thing in the world after cyclists (feel free, I don' hate you but you're still annoying as fuck ) is dicks who park on clearways, this causes a lot of traffic delays.
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Goddamn vultures. In Melbourne, I've seen tow trucks driving up and down a section of road whose clearway times start soon so they can tow cars the second the clearway starts



Some people live on a clearway and have to park there over night. Few things annoy me more when driving than people parking in a clearway, but I'm not a dick. I don't demand they be out of it the minute the clearway time starts. People can be a bit late, you know

Honestly? Good. Don't park on clearways right near the time, sorry but that seems like a no brainer, you should be gone before the time (even 5-10mins before). Not on it or a little after it, before it. The most frustrating thing in the world after cyclists (feel free, I don' hate you but you're still annoying as fuck ) is dicks who park on clearways, this causes a lot of traffic delays.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Goddamn vultures. In Melbourne, I've seen tow trucks driving up and down a section of road whose clearway times start soon so they can tow cars the second the clearway starts

Thanks for the ups!
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
*quality

Let's look at this another way.

If this poor schmuck had, in an act of gratitude for the doctors who helped his wife survive cancer, went to one of their houses and attempted to recklessly wash their garage in a very unsafe fashion, and, in so doing, lost his leg, and then proceeded to attempt to sue the doctor...

It would still be fucking hilarious.

@Yossarian FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina was a fucking disaster.

If you treat people as children incapable of thinking ahead and worrying about disasters and such, you'll likely get more of that reckless behavior. Let them come up with their own solutions that don't involve imposing costs on others to support a failure of an institution, and they'll eventually learn to deal with problems more responsibly.

If it bothers you that an insurance company might take 10, 20, or 30% profit, why doesn't it bother you when government wastes a much bigger percentage of your tax dollars doing the same thing with no profits to show for it?

I'd appreciate it if you'd continue this discussion in the appropriate topic, not on my profile, thanks.

Has anyone ever considered the thought that there is no other alternative for him to draw fire? You're on a face of the mountain, middle of nowhere, and you gotta draw fire. You go wherever it is appropriate to go to draw fire. If it means he's gotta go downward and closer to where the shots are coming from, then you gotta do it. After all, what better way to draw fire than to give them a bigger target and something to worry about.

I don't side on the notion that the guy may be dumb. Sure, what he was doing was reckless. But if there is no other way to do it, you gotta man up, suck it up, grab your balls, and run with it.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ZappaDanMan:
Romain Grosjean has been given a one race suspension for causing the first-lap collision at the Belgian Grand Prix, and also imposed a €50,000 fine.

I personally don't get what a penalty like that is supposed to accomplish, you mean next time when he's wheel to wheel with someone he should just yield the position without trying?
I mean, he fucked up, but this kind of crap happens all the time further back in the line, and people don't get suspended from the next race for it. I guess the standard now is if you knock out a star like Alonso or Hamilton you face a much stiffer penalty than if you knock out Timo Glock or Heikki Kovalienen.
I guess it's a much bigger safety risk if you endanger the FIA's bottom line than it is if you endanger someone's life by being stupid...


Agreed.. unless you have a rich father to payoff official for penalties like Pastor Maldanado. He failed to slow down at the scene of an accident at Monaco in GP2, despite the presence of warning flags, and struck and seriously injured a marshal. He was banned from the sport, until his father stepped in and payed large sums of money.
He continues to be a reckless drive (not aggressive, reckless) and will injure someone in F1, with the likes of his multiple incidents he's had this season. Give someone like him fines means nothing.

He should not have a super licence.

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Talk about wreckless, how about state-sanctioned murder by helicopter of journalists? Isn't Wikileaks doing a service to humanity by getting this information out? Doesn't this trump "putting our operatives in danger"? >> ^Hybrid:

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.
>> ^dag:
You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.

>> ^dag:

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:

Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.

>> ^dag:

What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? People get extradited for breaking internationally recognised laws.>> ^Hybrid:

If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.