champu

I like this idea, but only if euthanasia is legalized. I'm for both. But I see no reason to make one contingent upon legalization of the other. They are both independently important enough to not treat like negotiation chips. "I'll get you a cup of coffee, but only if I can also buy you a donut." "Uh... sounds great!"

There are a few news articles out there about this proposed bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546 I tried to find one that's not too over the top: http://www.ibamag.com/news/house-bill-to-require-gun-owners-to-carry-liability-insurance-22716.aspx The "on-topic-ness" I'm going for here is, while this is an idea I think you hear from time to time, how would this ever work in practice? Or would this be mandatory insurance that is virtually guaranteed to never pay out a claim? (maybe I should get in on the ground floor ) Were you committing a crime against someone? Oh, well that's out of policy. Was it an accident where someone was injured or property was damaged? That's clearly gross negligence, and is out of policy. Did you or a family member commit suicide? That's definitely out of policy. You used your firearm legally to defend yourself but one of your shots missed the target and hit a parked car owned by a third party? In that case, you're in luck! We cover that.... oh, wait you didn't meet the deductible, never mind.

I kinda like the idea of only ever sentencing someone to life without parole, and then give anyone sentenced to life without parole the option to take the death penalty instead.

I think it's going to be 5 or 6 games leaning towards 5. Hawks will probably need to make an adjustment or two after a loss. The way the Hawks play though, you have to beat them very early in the game or else you're done.

I am not trying to disagree with you, I am not getting what you are saying. Fair enough... My two points were simply that a) selfish/anti-social behavior in its various forms is probably not getting any more extreme in recent years. It may seem that way but, like most things, it's probably just you're hearing about more examples and hearing about more extreme examples these days. Previously they would have just happened and you'd be none the wiser. And b) selfish behavior is not limited to behavior that shouts, "screw everyone else, I got mine." Sometimes people can do or recommend things that sound altruistic on their face, but when you dig a little deeper you realize what they really support is changing other peoples' behavior or using other peoples' time and money to do the things they recommend to make the country better. Mind you, this second point is not incompatible with what you wrote... ...it's just to say that having an underlying motivation of making the country better doesn't mean the person isn't being selfish.

Chicago figured out how to beat the Ducks' aggressive forecheck that was causing them so much trouble in this series and that was the end of that.

It's somewhat ironic that we're in a thread talking about symptoms of problems, polarization of ideologies, etc. and you are hell-bent on being in disagreement with me. Please try re-reading my posts and pretend that I'm not disagreeing with you, but rather trying to offer an explanation and temperance.

***The information age has reached a point where you can take essentially any topic and find articles, studies, and materials on the internet to convince yourself, and perhaps at least a few others, that it constitutes a MAJOR problem and that "there oughta be a law." This naturally creates a fair amount of conflict. Those two quotes are at odds with each other. You first indicate that there is no change, then you outline what has changed. The latter is a contributing factor to the former. I'm saying everything seems more extreme because it's simply easier to find people who are interested in telling you how extreme all situations are. There are more options than those two. I think they call this a strawman. My post in no way suggests those are the only two things that can happen. You lamented the way people put their own interests over those of society, I was emphasizing that it is a balance and that there's more than one way in which it can go awry.

Mine either, and some people should not drive and some should not skydive. So, do we take parachutes and cars away from everyone? You're really doing a crap job of speaking for firearm owners Marc. Strawmanning the hell out of anything someone says isn't helping. The answer to all these questions is that it depends. In many jurisdictions there is criminal liability if a child does something like this with a firearm of yours. If it constitutes a felony or one of a few disqualifying misdemeanors (which depends on the details and, again, the jurisdiction) then, no, society does not deem them trustworthy with a gun anymore. As for whether they would still want guns? I dunno, and I don't have any interest in changing people's wants.

First off, everything seems more extreme these days. Louis CK had a couple bits related to that which were pretty funny. One was about foods and how so many snack foods are so packed full of flavoring that if you give a kid an apple they have a hard time enjoying it. The other was about going to the top shelf with words and describing everything with superlatives. The information age has reached a point where you can take essentially any topic and find articles, studies, and materials on the internet to convince yourself, and perhaps at least a few others, that it constitutes a MAJOR problem and that "there oughta be a law." This naturally creates a fair amount of conflict. Regarding how things affect individuals vs. society and how that drives people's voting, I've commented on that before but in the other direction. People voting for things that they believe (for whatever reason, substantiated or otherwise) will help make the country better and that they think won't affect them is that road to hell paved with good intentions you've probably heard of. It's no more selfish to say, "this sounds great but it screws me over personally, so I vote no" than it is to say, "This sounds great and I personally don't have to do anything, so I vote yes."

Don't forget to put signs up in airport security lines (yes, even in domestic terminals) that say, "Traveling to West Africa...? Be aware you are only allowed 3 ounces of Lassa fever."

It's definitely a shorter gun for the barrel length, but an AR with a 7 inch barrel would come in around 23 inches OAL. If the gun were that short it would still be an NFA item even if the barrel is 16 inches long.

Your sentence, not mine. That sentence of her's parallels two other lists in the post that more clearly list complaints against rioters followed by complaints against police. It wasn't 100% clear, but it was definitely parseable. In any event, she clarified what she meant, what is the point of continuing an argument over what is known by both people to have been a misunderstanding?

Either way, cover your ears.

Having a navel doesn't actually say anything about having a father or not.

Nit-picking the finer points of a wholly preposterous story is kinda dumb. If a god supposedly whipped up two people up out of thin air and ribs how much more of a stretch are navels?

Very bizarre article... Doesn't seem to explain what is going on very well... Also, their CDC link is wrong: try this one So basically he went through 136 causes of death and tagged each state with the cause of death whose rate for that state is most out of line with the national average (aka cause of death with the highest rate ratio.) However, without some way of visualizing the rate ratio associated with the cause of death in each state you can't really conclude anything. If states have a relatively low rate ratio for all causes of death then this map would just be noise for them.

I think unemployment, disability, life expectancy, and obesity rates are pretty good measures for the "doing better or doing worse" picture they'd like to understand, but I think bachelors degrees and median household income might actually be inversely related to how difficult it is to live somewhere. Think about what it means for someone at the federal poverty line ($24K for a family of four) to be living in a county with a median household income of $22K vs somewhere with a median household income of $42K.

Better yet: Computer with Internet, but make anything he writes (e-mails, forum posts, YouTube comments, Wikipedia edits, etc.) show up to himself as though it posted, but not actually go anywhere so no one else ever sees or responds to anything.

I was in Iceland last week hiking on a glacier. A fucking glacier! In May! Global warming?!? Pshaw!

While I agree the hypothesis likely has merit, there is simply too much variability in police responses for these two encounters to prove anything. There is also too much variability in responses to consider conducting a statistically significant number of trials anything but insane. I'm white and I wouldn't carry an AR-15 over my shoulder in the city in SoCal where I live for a number of reasons, not the least of which because I'd guess there's about a 5-10% chance that legal or not I would get shot by responding police. It would depend on the department and what the freaked out person who called 911 told the dispatcher. Plus, as has been noted, the editing is suspect. This is not to say the black guy wasn't treated more harshly, but simply to say that's exactly how I'd expect it to be edited if the response wasn't as disparate as the authors would have liked.

You and kallend keep repeating this quote but I think you're both reading "depends on" as "might be related in any way to." Such an interpretation basically boils down to, "all conflicts of interest are absolute" which I don't think is true.

I agree that psychopaths would likely find alternate means to justify atrocities and manipulate others into joining them for want of religion (and history provides us examples of this), but the same can be said of any positive effects religions have. Religious texts are attempts by people to codify in a combination of direct and indirect language what they felt was right, what they felt was wrong, what they felt was true, and how they felt people should live at the time of their writing. They are snapshots. They are not owed "special" status by anyone. Sound ideas and teachings are just that, and why practices that work do and those that don't don't should be taught with multi-sourced historical examples. Anything that doesn't go down without sprinkling "God said so" on it shouldn't be swallowed.

Are you a gigantic person?

Little? I'd hedge a bet he's bigger than you. Hedging your bet would, indeed, be a good idea in this case.