The diversity within groups is greater than the diversity between groups.
Printable View
The diversity within groups is greater than the diversity between groups.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22...st-argues.html
If you don't eat hamburgers, you're misogynist.
And probably racist too.
Overheard in Tesco...
"Daddy, why is my sister called Teresa?"
"Because your Mommy loves Easter, and it's an anagram."
"Ah, I see, thanks Dad."
"No problem Alan."
The story of Easter...
Around 2000 years ago, Jesus got nailed to a cross. We call this Good Friday. He got put into a cave with a big stone put in front of it, too big a stone for anyone to move (even though someone must have put it there), and a few days later they had a look in there, and he was gone. Naturally, the most likely explanation is that he came back to life and did some magic to get out, and so we celebrate this wonderful event by getting someone to dress up as a bunny and hide some chocolate eggs for kids to go looking for. Because rabbits, eggs and Jesus are a natural combination.
What a wonderful time of the year. Happy Easter everyone.
You forgot to mention how white he was, and that he now lives at the North Pole.
I want someone to explain to me how Christianity, in its entirety, is not a sin.
Moses said "Rule number one...no other gods!!!"
Then like 3000 years later someone said "well....cmon...just one more??"
And somehow that was ok.
Yeah no other gods.
But we'll sneak in some pagan fertility celebrations and pretend it's Christian.
Can't remember which thread we were talking about media bias in, but check out the BBC right now.
Porton Down (UK chemical lab) have said they are unable to confirm the nerve agent is Russian.
You have to search for the article on the BBC website, it's not on their front page.
It's called the Holy Trinity. It's really just one god. There, that solves it, right? Oh, and the Virgin Mary isn't a god, and you absolutely should not worship her as one... unless you're Latino, then have at it, but if anyone asks, say she's not a god.
If you've still got questions, ask wuf, he's fond of Christianity and he's really good at hand waving.
And she's definitely a virgin. Do not ask Catholics if they can be sure she wasn't just telling Joseph a pack of lies, it offends them for some reason.
Wrestlemania weekend!!!!!
NXT takeover looks like it should be a great show, on now.
I've missed you savy, it's made my day to see you calling me a liar for a poor seasonal joke over a week ago.
Hi, Savy.
How was your WWE weekend?
NXT was brilliant, wrestlemania was overall a good watch but pretty poor nearer the end.
I can't see myself posting very much anymore I'm not interested in the vast majority of what gets spoken about on here and it's fairly dead anyway.
So a dude comes to your house, takes your cell phone, and tries to abscond with your property.
You use your gun to protect your stuff, and somehow YOU are the criminal??
WTF America???
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/10...ans-ar-15.html
Even if cell phone theft was punishable by death, you'd still have to give the man due process before injecting him over some chinese electronics. Doesn't sound like it was on his property either... and he knew the guy.
If that looks like a lawful killing to you, how do you feel about a pupil who steals a teachers cellphone? Should the teacher be allowed to kill the student? And if not, how is this different?
No, that's not how self-defense works. It doesn't matter if it's trivial "chinese electronics" or your life savings. It doesn't matter if it's your car, or a box of CocoPuffs. If someone is stealing your shit, you blast 'em.
So? Imagine you're armed. You're walking down the street and someone tries to take your wallet? Do you just hand it over and say "Well, I would shoot you, but we're not on my property, so here's my money"Quote:
Doesn't sound like it was on his property either...
Again, imagine you're armed. You come home to find your wife getting raped by your neighbor, and he refuses to stop. Are you gonna shoot the guy? Or are you gonna say "Well, I would shoot you, but since I know you I'll just describe you to the police later. Hurry up and finish"Quote:
and he knew the guy
I'm not seeing why the distinction of teacher & student is relevant. The only question here is should a property owner be allowed to defend his property from a thief using deadly force. I'm sure the nuances vary from state to state, but overall I would say "yes definitely".Quote:
If that looks like a lawful killing to you, how do you feel about a pupil who steals a teachers cellphone? Should the teacher be allowed to kill the student? And if not, how is this different?
Well at least you're consistent.
Quote:
Smith had become angry after demanding Lavon return his cellphone and shot at him with a Glock semiautomatic pistol, the complaint said.
It's not clear if Lavon stole the phone or possessed it with Smith's consent and failed to return it in what Smith felt was a timely manner upon request. This distinction does matter. Further, Smith did not open fire while trying to resist being relieved of his property, he shot at Lavon as he fled. Again, this distinction matters, legally and morally.
Kill a man over 5c. Fucking perfect
This is the argument that conveys the stereotype that with the gun you feel like a man and without it you feel like a boy
... and you shoot your wife in the process too, Keyser Sôze style. And, like Keyser Sôze, the kids while you are at it. Even the dog. Shoot everything that moves, burn down the house, then go out for the families of the guilty, even people who happen to just know them
Ok, judge, jury and executioner all in one. Anti gun people prefer to outsource those tasks to professionals
Something to entertain Ong when he has lots of spliffs.
https://imgur.com/gallery/1uA6031
Epilepsy warning please
Apparent motion doesn't induce seizures, flashing lights do.
Have another spliff and try it again.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/nation...208437499.html
At least someone's agreeing with you.
How is it flip flopping?
The first story was about an actual thief. The second story was about a perceived thief. The law doesn't make a distinction, so neither shooting should be a crime. In the first story, an actual thief was punished. That's justice (the "fairness" of which is debatable, sure). In the second story, someone was killed for being mistakenly perceived as a thief. That's clearly NOT justice. That's a tragedy.
If the father had a right to shoot, then the son was rightfully shot.
He wasn't mistaken for a thief. He stole his brothers truck. He may have planned on returning it, but the intention of returning something doesn't change the fact that he stole it.
This is not in dispute.
Then why was he shot?Quote:
He wasn't mistaken for a thief.
That's a dubious assertion. He didn't leave the family property. If I came into your office and picked up a pen, signed something, then put the pen back...am I thief?Quote:
He stole his brothers truck
Disagree, but really it doesn't matter. It's a distinction without a difference. The kid did something that carried the risk of being perceived as a thief, and that risk was realized. Word it however you like. It doesn't change the justifiable-ness of the shooting.Quote:
He may have planned on returning it, but the intention of returning something doesn't change the fact that he stole it.
Read the whole thing, then respond after you have collected your thoughts. Sometimes the second part of a sentence contains clues that clarify the first part.
You were the one who is defending the idea that you should be allowed to kill people based on dubious assertions. The shooting is only justifiable if you presume that you are allowed to execute an unidentified person who you perceive to have stolen something that is your, or a blood relatives property, and as such should carry no repercussions.
I don't want to be Mr. Obvious over here, but isn't this a ridiculously easy get out of jail free card? Slip someone your phone, shoot them in the back as they walk away. "Your honor, he had my phone!"
- "DISMISSED!"
If you feel I've misunderstood you somehow, just say so, and explain what you think I've misunderstood. Being a dick-hole isn't really helping this discussion.
Incorrect. You can kill people based on reasonable and justifiable assertions that your life or property are being threatened.Quote:
You were the one who is defending the idea that you should be allowed to kill people based on dubious assertions.
I didn't say "no repercussions". In the cell phone story, the shooter may be subject to ethical judgement from his peers. If this guy applied for a job from me and I googled his name, I wouldn't hire him. It's also possible that the victim's family could seek remedies in civil court. Being an asshole carries repercussions. Just not the same repercussions as being a criminal.Quote:
The shooting is only justifiable if you presume that you are allowed to execute an unidentified person who you perceive to have stolen something that is your, or a blood relatives property, and as such should carry no repercussions.
Yes you doQuote:
I don't want to be Mr. Obvious over here,
No. Applying the law isn't that objective and simple. If it were, lawyers wouldn't exist, juries wouldn't be needed, and judges would make $25K a year.Quote:
but isn't this a ridiculously easy get out of jail free card?
They have a phrase for situations like this: don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Has anyone else noticed that YouTube suggestions have gone all unhelpful lately?
Like, I click one random link, but don't watch the full video, and I'm seeing suggestions in my feed for dozens of videos related to the one which I obviously didn't even enjoy enough to finish the video.
Anyone else notice this?
You can select "not interested" from the pulldown menu, but it seems to take a lot of voting until they no longer suggest a channel.
I think it's all about clickthrough rate and watch time.
But how would YOU go about determining it if you were the investigator, judge or possibly a jury.
You don't need a criminal law degree for that, you need a precog. A law degree doesn't give you magic powers.
I stand by my answer
You misspelled diversion.
Well then maybe I don't understand the question.
I'd do all the stuff they do on Law & Order. I'd interrogate the shooter and try to determine if he's truthful. I'd interview witnesses. I'd talk to people that know them. I'd try to find out if there was a different motive than a cell phone theft. I'd look at the forensic evidence. How was he shot. How many times. I'd scrutinize everything the shooter did after the shooting. I'd weigh the facts. And I'd determine an outcome.Quote:
But how would YOU go about determining it if you were the investigator, judge or possibly a jury.
Given what evidence could you find the accused guilty?
Give me an example of the kind of proof you could give if you were the prosecution.
It's just fun watching you chase your tail.
I don't want to be too excited over a small step in a long marathon, but this strikes me as a rather momentous step.
MIT proof-of-concept design for manufacturing graphene in a continuous process.
http://news.mit.edu/2018/manufacturi...membranes-0418
Again, I don't want to get too excited over a small step, but loads of "future tech" ideas are limited by needing stronger, lighter materials, and mass production of graphene has been widely anticipated as our best next step for materials science to bring us that/those material(s).
Do you have insight into what appears to be a difference between tech created by companies and tech created by not-companies? What I'm getting at is this divide: companies keep creating new things that hit the market and people buy, while popular articles keep talking about amazing things happening in research that rarely seem to hit the market.
Seriously, whose alt is Banana?
There's like zero chance he's not someone's alt-- I mean, maybe, just maybe he's just a random troll that stumbled upon a small but active forum to have some fun on-- but he's most certainly not a real person.
Shush spoon/wuf/rilla or whoever the fuck you really are. It's been at least a month since we talked about how you're an alt, the topic is clearly up for renewal.
Spoon would be the obvious candidate. I thought about it, but I don't think spoon could possibly go this long without posting a coontown gif.
That sounds sick as fuck!
If they can make foil, they can make cylinders, right? At the very least. Or fold it into a crane. I don't know much about origami but I heard it's great.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
Ong, explain yourself.
lol, it's so bad it's good.
Is wuf trying to talk like a British farmer who's drunk a little too much coider?
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/0...nto-fight.html
Watch the video. How useless are tasers?
I think that guy just happens to not do pain. Kind of funny that after a good minute of tasing, he's still casually asking why they're taking him off the plane.