Racism is a riddle only the Batman could figure out.

Way to blame the victim. Regardless of how snarky she was, no matter how counter productive she became, dragging her off is what you should have focused on. Instead you end up looking like you're rushing to the defense of thin-skinned guilt-riddled Texas GOP legislators.

Do people realize the whole "if a good guy owns a gun" goes both ways? I love this argument because it's so one sided and utterly blind. I'd like to call it the "dumbass argument".

Let's think for a moment: kids looking for friend suddenly have a man open fire on them, so they all pull out their firearms to protect themselves from the raving lunatic old man who opened fire on them first. Old man is dead, riddled with dozens of bullets. Good guys win. Oh . . . wait. That's not what happened. The good guys didn't have a gun. Or was the old man a good guy? I'm confused now. Who's the good guy?

We had something similar here in Florida where a man was going door to door to sell lobster. Homeowner shot him in the head as he walked away, kept shooting him, and went to reload while an officer was trying to arrest him.

The real issue is the fact this man, and the man in my example, simply thought owning a gun meant they could shoot and kill someone for almost a pathetic reason. Both were "defending my home" against the evils of lobsters and ice skating. I believe this is the movie line of "shoot first, ask questions later." This is what is referring to as the "gun culture."

Yeah, guns (unless it's a colt) don't kill people, people with guns kill people. But there's an old mentality (that's pretty much dead now) that using a gun was cheating. That using a gun wasn't personal, so they resorted to swords and fists. Now, it's so easy to kill a person that it's almost impersonal just to shoot at some brown kid who's "invading" your home by showing up in a car, knocking on the door politely, and asking "Dónde está Paul?"

So anyway, now that we're arguing on the internet . . . .

@RedSky

I didn't say the US is more violent by nature, and I don't think it is (the US has lower violence than the UK and Australia which have essentially banned gun ownership). With 70 million people in this country owning guns (NRA 2010) and 45% of households having a gun in them (Gallup 2011), if we were so violent, you'd hear about neighbors shooting it out all the time over trivial shit.

I read an article the other day, which I can't find right now, that showed the difference between gun ownership in large cities and urban areas vs. rural areas and small towns. The rate of gun ownership in rural areas and small towns was over 2x as in cities, but violence and murders are higher in larger cities. Does this mean more guns equals less violence? Whether it does or doesn't, I think it shows that more people crammed into a smaller space equals more violence.

Why should we punish millions of responsible gun owners because of the actions of a few (and some who weren't legally able to own guns). Around 35,000 people are killed in car accidents every year. Most car owners and drivers are responsible and safe, but there isn't a public outcry to impose crazy restrictions on them (although we could reduce the number of deaths caused by cars if we did). The reason is because a lot of people have an irrational fear of guns even though you're more likely to be killed or injured by a car than guns.

I blame a this on the media. Some people are also irrationally afraid of flying, even though it's one of the safest ways to travel. If on the same day for some freaky reason 500 people died in unrelated, isolated car accidents across the country and a plane carrying 200 passengers crashes killing everyone on board, which do you think will get the most news coverage?

I just read an article by Sam Harris last night titled FAQ on Violence, which is a followup answering some questions and criticism of a previous article titled The Riddle of the Gun. Just go read the article. He answers a lot of questions about violence, gun violence, using guns for self defense, etc. I don't agree with some of what he says, but it does echo some of what I've been saying in discussions on this subject.

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

"We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that 40 percent of all guns in the U.S. are legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally. Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners."

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Revelation, Greek, Hebrew, alphabet, number riddle, nero, roulette' to 'Revelation, Greek, Hebrew, alphabet, number riddle, nero, roulette, 666, 616' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^probie:

Grew up watching Jim Varney. Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam anyone? One of my favorite spots of his was an anti-smoking PSA he did, where he chided Vern for smoking. "I care about ya buddy! But if you keep going like this, the groundhogs will be deliverin' yer mail, know what I mean?"
If they ever do a biopic, I nominate Mike Rowe.


Mike Rowe is like Ernest's evil twin Nash. All that workin out in prison. It'd be interesting to see him behave with such... timidity? Ernest isn't what I'd call a man's man. His strength lies in his pure ignorance and ingenuity, such that he holds to antiquated notions of chivalry and, not realizing the true nature of his enemies, fear does not hold sway.

Ernest underestimates his enemies and is easily defeated, coming back with something so wacky it works. Like someone that doesn't know how to play chess throwing off a chess master. Mike Rowe would not underestimate the enemy and would create a more logical and less fantastical battle plan.

>> ^Raveni:

I was going to write something sarcastic like "Too long. Didn't watch the whole thing."...
But I'm sincerely curious. Why do they change the steering wheel?


Interesting question indeed! I'm wondering if there are batteries in there? Perhaps it's to get around some crazy rule F1 seems riddled with.

Grew up watching Jim Varney. Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam anyone? One of my favorite spots of his was an anti-smoking PSA he did, where he chided Vern for smoking. "I care about ya buddy! But if you keep going like this, the groundhogs will be deliverin' yer mail, know what I mean?"

If they ever do a biopic, I nominate Mike Rowe.

>> ^swedishfriend:

shinyblurry! So who was the riddle about? What is the name you think fits best?


It is still a mystery that has yet to be revealed. The antichrist is said to be a world leader who comes about during the end times and will seize power during an economic crisis. He is also said to negotiate a 7 year peace deal with Israel. He will consolidate his power and become the head of a one world government and economy, having authority over every nation and the ability to regulate all commerce. Midway through his rule he will declare himself to be God and cause the entire world to worship him in a one world religion. He will also have a supernatural power to back up his claims.

The major sign we are in those times is the reformation of the nation of Israel. That the Jewish people are back in their homeland after 2000 years is the definitive sign that we are in the last days. An additional sign that this is getting close is when the Jews build the third temple. Right now, they are in the preparation stage, having already built the implements for the temple and also training priests to serve there. There are many other signs..here is a good video describing some of them:

shinyblurry! So who was the riddle about? What is the name you think fits best?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Revelations, Greek, Hebrew, alphabet, number riddle, nero, roulette' to 'Revelation, Greek, Hebrew, alphabet, number riddle, nero, roulette' - edited by brycewi19

>> ^bobknight33:

I was not presenting any logical connection between the two. I was presenting the fact that there is moral outrage for the cat incident but when a woman has an abortion the is no love lossed for the destruction of life.

>> ^Gutspiller:
>> ^bobknight33:
Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

Your logic seems flawed comparing having an abortion to putting a cat in cement.



I guess we can ask the next question in the series.

Why will someone go virtually unpunished for cementing a kitten, but face murder for cementing a baby? You're a fucked up person either way, yet it's OK to do this twisted shit to animals although it's clearly not in line with what society wants......and the laws don't reflect it.

While as with abortion, contrary to what some people want..the law supports what society generally wants and leaves it up to the individuals involved in the pregnancy to make the choice themselves instead of taking the choice away. Cementing something alive should clearly not be a choice someone can make and go unpunished or be lightly punished, yet in the case of animals..it is. And it happens in much worse ways to more animals every day, lack of food, lack of water, being chained to a tree with no shelter...lots of dogs end up dead because they twist themselves up in their chain during storms and no one comes out to free them for days and days. Dog dies, person just gets another one.

So if we can torture things like that, some fetuses being killed instantly by deliberate choice seems like a very minor thing in the overall picture. At least it's quick. Hell we don't even torture criminals on death row...they keep trying to make it quicker and less painful...despite what the criminal did of their own free will and probably deserves some suffering for.


And aside from killing, the really humorous part is the same people against abortions are also against child welfare and welfare in general and talk about population control to fix hand outs. Just don't control it in ways they disapprove of, like the pill....condoms.....or basically anything. Then don't get abortions. And then get harped at all your life because you can't follow those simple illogical steps laid out before you. It's a big case of "do as I say, not as I do", religion suffers from it and it tends to carry over...that mental disconnect that when THEY use protection/pill/whatever it's different than OTHERS doing those things...and when THEIR daughter needed an abortion because <whatever> it doesn't make their values any less stupid because OTHERS reasons just aren't as good as their reasons. But they won't openly admit that shit to other people, because.....well they know it's wrong. Forgiveness and all is the motto, yet it's rarely ever practiced...another one of those disconnects. Funny that.