narcimund

Can you spell out in more detail how close a tie you think there is? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Wow. You're famous for persevering against people who continually and stubbornly play nonstop dirty debating tricks against you while ignoring everything you're actually trying to communicate. Then I ask you one clarifying question based on my true guess at what you really meant and you throw your hands in the air. Having a bad day? First Class Citizen Twice Over

If that is the current infantry weapon at the time - why not? Oh. This interests me. I'm all for carrying pistols, but the question starts to confuse me when the weapon becomes more powerful. Should we accept civilians carrying laser beams that can kill a roomful of people simultaneously? How about one that could destroy an entire sports arena with 50k people in a flash? What if handheld doomsday devices were someday possible? Should everyday average folk be able to buy and carry a device which would blow up the planet? This is a big exaggeration I suppose. But approximately where would people draw the line? Hmmm. Maybe it's time for a poll... First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's an arbitrary definition that could easily go astray. I imagine the military might have all sorts of science fiction weapons that pass your test. If those don't exist now, we can assume they'll exist in the future. Would you want your interpretation to allow civilians to carry a weapon that might -- say -- vaporize 1000 people or a large building just because it was lightweight and had a simple user interface? First Class Citizen Twice Over

I recognize that you have reason to be emotional about this -- but the grandmother is not a red herring. Nor is the teenager who boned his slightly underage girlfriend. Nor is the child who acted childishly with another child. You have to make a proposal for how to avoid destroying the lives of these essentially innocent people alongside your call to destroy the lives of those who are not innocent. Well, you don't have to. You can just accept that innocent people will be destroyed by the legal system. That IS how society works after all. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I have to admit I'm shocked. I expected a measure of nonsense, but are you ACTUALLY advocating exiling the grandmother who's convicted of taking pictures of her infant grandson in the bath to an arctic island? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Wow. For a freedom loving person you sure do have a lot of opinions about how other people should be forced to live. I agree with you here. I recommend she find an employer with less ridiculous policies. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Yeah. ESPECIALLY the 18 year old whose 16-year-old girlfriend's parents ratted him out -- or the 13 year old kid who's pubescent fantasies got out of hand -- or the grandma who took pictures of her infant grandson in the bath. Kill 'em all! First Class Citizen Twice Over

She should get a job with an employer whose policies fit her needs better. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Yeah. And then he contradicts himself. I suspect he's confused about what his issue really is. First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's really funny. I never thought of Gay Pride as referring to one's cocksucking skills. To be more serious, I always thought it could conceivably refer to pride in overcoming the adversities of being gay in an oppressive society. Same for Black Pride or others. But I know a lot of people disagree with my view. I happen to think it's the most generous interpretation, but it's still largely fictional. First Class Citizen Twice Over

The more complex question which seems to be tripping some people up is hunting for food while enjoying yourself. The OP seems to think that's a problem. edit to fix a markup error First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's an interesting question. People certainly can have an interest in not being exposed to things they don't like. Can that be called a "right"? People have strong views that "rights" are real objective things that we discover in the universe and protect. In fact the notion is a very human construct and the borders of the definition ebb and flow most unnervingly. Just when you think you got a handle on it, someone jumps in and invents a new right or disparages an old one. The basic problem is we're enumerating piecemeal rights instead of deciding on a philosophical model. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I hate hearing people say "I'm proud of you for ...." You can't be proud of someone else or their accomplishments. You can admire them of course, but pride is a state that's directed inward. The proper phrase is, "I admire you for ...." I suppose a shaky exception might be when you've contributed to the other person's accomplishment such as when a teacher instructs a student. The teacher can justifiably show pride in the student's accomplishment to the extent they participated: "I'm proud of my student who learned their lesson so well." (But even then what the teacher is really saying is, "I'm proud of myself for training my student so well and admire him for learning.") But aside from cases with that very close connection, the proper phrase is, "I admire you for..." That's my pet peeve of the day. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Regarding child molestation, no cockamamie claim of spontaneous statistics is too absurd to get parroted by the masses -- or get used to support a draconian law. In the 50s it was "communism". In the 20s it was "anarchism". Now the list includes "terrorism", "second-hand smoke", and "safety". First Class Citizen Twice Over

I don't know if you know the history. The person you ask me to thank have written extraordinarily nasty personal things to me when I was equally thoughtful and intelligent but he happened not to like the topic. I will not thank him. edited to add: Now that I've had my morning tea, I'm wishing I wrote this post and my response to markharju with a softer tone. I was too quick to post when my temper flared. But it seems disingenuous to change the words at this point. Ah well. First Class Citizen Twice Over

But earlier you advocated NOT using the legal system to restrict this sort of thing. You wanted people to vote with their dollars. I would conjecture that you would also choose to repeal all nuisance laws and let the free market decide if loudspeaker advertisements in neighborhoods would exist. No sir. I lose something important to me by their existence. I acknowledge that you don't mind billboards constantly hovering in your sight, so you lose nothing by their existence. That's fine and I accept that your interests are different from mine. But I value a billboard-free field of view. However, that's not available to me or anyone else who feels as I do. That's the asymmetry that makes this aspect of Free Market free for some and unfree for others. If just one person wants to impose their Free Market billboard on everyone, he wins. Some of the losers won't care (which is fine) but others will. In a supposedly Free Market people should always be able to trade according to their interests which is excellent. But in some cases (like this fairly trivial billboard situation and other much more significant cases) some interests are not possible to trade without trampling on the interests of people who aren't involved in your transaction. And my whole point is just to shake my head and think, oy! As the world gets more crowded, there's inevitably going to be more and more of this. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'd think more of you if you understood that points can be intelligent and thoughtful even if they don't agree with your prejudices. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Here's a relevant analogy. It would probably be profitable -- if it weren't illegal -- to raise loudspeakers on privately-owned posts and blare audible advertisements throughout your neighborhood. You'd hear them when washing the dishes. You'd hear them while making love to your wife. You'd hear them while sleeping for god's sake. You might even choose to boycott advertisers who used that medium. We can hope you could organize everyone else to join you. Perhaps you could. I doubt it though -- especially if the audible ads were funny or risque. Advertisers would LOVE to buy time on that device. Luckily loud sounds are generally prohibited in areas dense enough to justify it. Your moral right to engage in Free Market transactions ends when I don't have the freedom to disengage. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Well, sort of. Free market does lead to some very immoral consequences -- such as the largely unintended but potentially serious destruction of things non-participants value. For instance, one might say billboards are harmless, but some people do value billboard-free fields of view. That's not available however. I can't even buy it. Spam is another very closely related advertising medium. Spam's a minor annoyance to most consumers but as an aggragate it's a huge cost. I personally spend around $20,000/year (out of profits that could have been dividends) to prevent spam in my business. That $20 grand is literally stolen from me by the spammers to finance their business in the name of free market. I'm all for free markets EXCEPT when they result in unfree markets like this. I would never argue this image or others is "inferior" but I will argue that this station has no moral right to force it upon me just because you boost their profits because it pleased you. This just shows that the notion of "Free Market" contains hidden slavery when unwilling people are forced to participate in other people's transactions. First Class Citizen Twice Over

This is very true. It makes people like me unhappy (and also makes people like that complaining woman unhappy for different reasons) but we're hardly the target audience. I'm going to hate that sort of radio station anyway. Now we just hate the station even more but they don't care. Once an audience member is lost, you may as well piss them off further. Or ruin their day. Or kill them. It's all the same. It's a fascinating phenomenon that advertisements that annoy or sometimes even severely damage innocent bystanders can be considered successful. Billboards and email spam both fit that description. Anyone that isn't giving you money is irrelevant. So do whatever you like to them at will. Broadcast as much irritation as you like. Everybody has to absorb it and just live with the constant low-grade ulcer for your profit. What a species! First Class Citizen Twice Over

Visually conflating self-proclaimed stupid or foolish people with women's body parts is tasteful? Homonyms cause enough trouble without making a big deal out of them. And when you've got one with a strongly negative connotation paired with one that's a highly meaningful symbol of a sensitive group, that's a recipe for tasteless in my book. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'm curious what technical distinction -- if any -- you're making here. How is carrying a concealed gun under your clothing into your friend's house different than keeping a weapon in your car in a parking lot? In both cases it's a gun contained inside your property that you've brought inside their property. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that any owner of private property can make any exclusions they want even including the contents of pockets or cars or hell! your personal bodily fluids. On the other hand, it's certainly everyone's right to refuse to go to that place. I would never apply for a job that insisted on analyzing my body fluids, nor do I go to sports arenas that expect to search me for weapons or beer bottles. If a teacher wants to carry a weapon, they should find a job at a school that doesn't prohibit them. Or failing to find one, change careers. Of course if the teacher finds they want to be a teacher MORE than they want to carry a gun, they can make that choice too. Freedom is a bitch when other people have it too, huh? First Class Citizen Twice Over

It's interesting that the cameraman carefully filmed the complainer from mid-breast up. It looks to me like she's displaying a pretty powerful billboard herself. That billboard IS repulsive though. Billboards really cross the line between the excellent right to free speech and the nonexistant right to be heard. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Have you been studying ncclimber's technique of interpreting posts ultra-literally then attacking irrelevant precision errors? First Class Citizen Twice Over