i was an attorney for victims of domestic violence for a couple years under a federal grant. fun job. eye-opening for sure.

Yeah there's a pretty broad range of shit out there, and yeah the details often dictate whether ur a just a bro-tard or whether ur going to jail for a long time.

Do I have to watch it? This vid, I mean?

Star Wars is about rebels fighting a powerful empire that governs the galaxy. It glorifies taking down the establishment by a group of (well funded) gun-toting terrorists.

I suppose you could draw a parallel to the American war of independence against the British...

But in a modern context this would be like a group of domestic insurgents blowing up an aircraft carrier ("Death Star") while staging an armed rebellion against the US government (now a subsidiarity of "Gov-co," a joint venture of the Disney, Viacom, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan Chase, and Koch Bros. companies).

Simply put, that's just not going to happen.

--------------------------

edit: Okay I just watched the above clip. That guy made even less sense than the BS that I just made up.

Cassowary attacks

Cassowaries have a reputation in folklore for being dangerous to people and domestic animals. During World War II American and Australian troops stationed in New Guinea were warned to steer clear of them. In his book Living Birds of the World from 1958, ornithologist Ernest Thomas Gilliard wrote:

The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird.

This assessment of the danger posed by cassowaries has been repeated in print by authors including Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Jared Diamond (1997). A 2003 historical study of 221 cassowary attacks showed that 150 had been against humans. 75% of these had been from cassowaries that had been fed by people. 71% of the time the bird had chased or charged the victim. 15% of the time they kicked. Of the attacks, 73% involved the birds expecting or snatching food, 5% involved defending natural food sources, 15% involved defending themselves from attack, and 7% involved defending their chicks or eggs. The 150 attacks included only one human death.

The one documented human death was caused by a cassowary on 6 April 1926. 16-year-old Phillip McClean and his brother, aged 13, came across a cassowary on their property and decided to try to kill it by striking it with clubs. The bird kicked the younger boy, who fell and ran away as his older brother struck the bird. The older McClean then tripped and fell to the ground. While he was on the ground the cassowary kicked him in the neck, opening a 1.25 cm (0.49 in) wound which may have severed his jugular vein. The boy died of his injuries shortly afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

But why though? As detestable as we can all dismissively think these pet-dumpers are, at least hear WHY your friend did why she did. Sometimes the reasons are more nuanced. Maybe financial/domestic troubles can be a factor.

It takes a really special type of asshole to do that to a domesticated animal.

No, not take Weinstein for example, that is an entirely different case and it undermines your position to use such an obvious straw man.

Society promotes the concept that men are violent, women are not. Any man that uses physical violence on a women is evil and if a woman raises a hand to a man and he strikes her in defense, he would still be the one that had to explain himself. Look at the Duluth model re: domestic violence sometime to see how truly baked in the myth that men are the perps and women are the vics...

https://medium.com/iron-ladies/men-are-still-pigs-the-politicization-of-domestic-violence-2cfa7488c204 (written by a woman for noting)

Particularly salient.

[i]It’s clear to me that despite the fact the Duluth Model has proven to be worthless, programs still adhere to the same principles. Men are still the automatic perpetrators, women are always victims. What’s worse is the men under attack by violent wives have no way of protecting themselves. Their right to self-defense in domestic violence cases has been cancelled.[/i]

I'm all for acknowledging that differences between the sexes is an absolutely real thing, but the long and the short of it is that women are basically allowed to assault men almost without consequences, but in the reverse situation the man would (justifiably) have the book thrown at him. And while men do have the physical advantage (although not always), they are hamstrung by society. The mere threat of a rape accusation (or far worse, the accusation that the husband has been abusing the kids) would silence most men in a heartbeat because they understand that the police, the judge, the social workers will believe the woman first.

Violence is wrong as is giving women a free pass because they rolled vagina in the game of life.

I get what you're trying to say but you don't really have to be bigger to abuse someone. You're ignoring the fact that women are typically given the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence situations because of that sort of thinking. Abusive women can and do use that fact to their advantage; a man can feel powerless to defend himself for any number of reasons: fear of mob-justice, criminal charges, loss of job, financial ruin, etc.

It's interesting that the people they interviewed after the roles were reversed felt that the man must have done something to piss off the woman and that somehow justified her behaviour.

Uhhh... you are aware of the atrocities Japanese soldiers committed less than a century ago during WWII, right? And I think you're confusing psychopaths (who may or may not be violent) with those suffering from a psychosis (a complete mental break with reality).

Either way, mental illness is a huge problem in Japan and in fact treatment of mental illness is one area where their socialized medicine is sorely lacking behind other countries.

I don't know of any credible studies that say that mental illness rates are lower in Japan than in other developed countries, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of crimes in pretty much any country are actually committed by people who are legally sane.

So, despite what you may believe, "genetic" predisposition is an unlikely factor in explaining Japan's crime rate. Besides which, criminologists agree that whatever role genetics plays in people becoming criminals it isn't nearly the most important factor and is dwarfed by environmental factors (see this for a scholarly article on the topic and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212>this for a popular news article).

You're trying to paint this as two equal parts of the recipe for crime when in reality it's more like "add two cups of environmental and a dash of genetics/personality/whatever."

Crime does happen here. The kinds of stuff I hear about on a daily basis in the news: crimes of desperation (homeless guy stealing to survive), thrill-seeking crimes (stealing a bike because you're young and stupid and the chances of getting caught are pretty low), crimes of passion (i.e. domestic violence, drunken bar fights, etc.), organized crime (i.e. yakuza), and the big one--sexual assault.

Sexual assault is so prevalent in Japan that there are actual signs warning women of areas where they are likely to be groped or have men expose themselves. There are train cars for women only so they don't have to get groped on the way to work or school. I mean, how fucked up is that?

So it isn't all rainbows and unicorns over here. Crime happens, and unfortunately is much more likely to happen to you if you're a woman. Still, even accounting for that the crime rates here are ridiculously low, for the reasons I stated above.

I don't think anyone suggests that civilian disarmament encourages tyranny, merely that civilian armament discourages tyranny.



In any case, there are a variety of applications that aren't "fighting hitler".

No country goes on forever without some domestic strife. Could be domestic war, could be economic collapse, could be the government scapegoating "your kind", could be a weather disaster, could be whatever.
In such an unlikely event, if you happen to be around at the time, you may wish to guard your family, food, fuel, etc.

Note that these events affect a LOT of people when they do happen (as in millions at a time).
Even though they are less frequent than a random shooting, the sheer quantity of people makes them significant.

Eg. The last Houston destruction by hurricane was in 1979 (38 years ago). That's not so infrequent, in a city of 2.3 million people (ish).
That's an upper bound of 60'000 people affected per year on average.
Either way, it's a lot of people that need to guard their homes from looters, etc.
Granted not everyone is on a destroyed street - but you see what I mean.

There have been plenty of disasters and riots in the last few decades where you wouldn't want to be caught helpless - just in case.

That's also a commentary on society. During the Fukushima disaster, nobody was looting or robbing, or whatever. Japan has a better behaved society.

-scheherazade

Same ratio or worse in Syria with insanely more powerful weapons available to citizens and a far lower grade military...actually far more tilted against the military....the military that has won. (Against multiple enemies both foreign and domestic)
Yes, bombs damage assets, but not territory, which is what's really at stake. Buildings only have value if they're in your territory, so if they aren't, it's beneficial to destroy them.
No civil population has successfully denied an armed military what they need to function since the Nazis failed in Russia that I know of. It's really not as simple as it sounds, the only effective way to deny them your resources is to destroy them.

In the Arab spring, I think the government was overthrown because military leaders decided to stand with the people in short order. It could have been quite different, in places it was. This is a better, more recent example of your point, imo.

"None of our side died, points for us"...begging for retaliation, no? Also, give it time, the murderer may have killed himself too, domestic terrorism is a capital offence.

"None of our people killed anyone unjustly."
The car was struck by a bat after he murderously drove through the crowd killing people.

He's just begging for someone to drive into his next rally so he can open fire with all 5 guns at once and finally feel like a man, isn't he?

His followers are scurrying for the shadows now that they're being identified publicly. It will be hilarious if all their homes get robbed while they're in San Francisco harassing homosexuals on 9/11.

Just from a quick goggle search. First thing i came across, and that is all you will get as it's already better then someone saying something is fact without the willingness to back it up. Although i assume you got that stat somewhere and would be interested to see where from.

"As the National Center for Women and Policing noted in a heavily footnoted information sheet, "Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general." "

The info sheet they reference http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp#notes

I think this narration makes a lot of assumptions.

That wolf was never domesticated. Domestication is a genetic adaptation that involves retaining juvenile traits that allow an animal to overcome the boundary that would instinctively cause them to flee or fight. This would take many generations. You can imagine how that adaptation would be advantageous to animals that benefit from living at the edges of human settlement.

There's no way to know why that wolf interacted the way it did but it was wild and posed a potential risk due to it's instinctive programming.

Happy that it remained an uplifting story. But it's not responsible to spread the narrative that you can domesticate a wild animal.

Your video, Fruits and vegetables before and after domestication, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Ever Seen a Docile Lion Become Domesticated and Friendly?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.