Randomness thread, part two.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Let's talk about an actual sport

Competitive swilling of mass-produced beer?

That guy will win 'cause he is swilling 3 beers at once, and the others have no beers.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is depression a real thing or is it imaginary?

My depression is real to me, but why should it be anything other than hearsay to you?
How could I ever prove to you that I'm not faking it?

I don't think anyone should be coerced over unprovable accusations.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Would your answer be the same for extreme cases of emotional harm? What about moderate cases?

I believe if the harm is unprovable, then the alleged harmer is unpunishable.

If I call you a big-fat dummy-face... is that harmful? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Different people will react differently. I don't see how you can prove that it was harmful.

I'm trying to think of decent examples, like a parent calling their child stupid on a regular basis seems appalling, but if they don't beat the child and do provide food and shelter and education, then... I find it hard to say that verbal disrespect should be criminal.

What if the kid is really stupid? Is it not OK to call a spade a spade? Not all kids are cute and smart and good athletes. That person may feel that it's harmful to be called stupid, but is it really? Just because they dislike their lot in the gene pool lottery doesn't imply that it isn't their lot, or that I should be nice, friendly, kind or otherwise a good person.

But can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Given that the the vehicle was on a road, with a person in the drivers seat, and at 1 point he was in one location and at another point he was in another location, would the totality of the circumstances show that he was almost certainly running the light?

Yes, it can. If you do the math and show that in order for their vehicle to have stopped it would have had to experienced a minimum change in momentum of X, which, given the time between frames, means that the car would have experienced a thrust equivalent to a Falcon Heavy engine at full throttle and that there was a conspicuous lack of rocket engines in the photos...

Then physics says guilty.

If the time between frames is too long, or the average velocity shown is slow enough, then the notion that you'd need a Falcon Heavy to accomplish that feat can get blurry. If the requirements are within the capability of the horsepower and brake horsepower of the vehicle, then it could be contested, IMO.

Sidenote: An expert is almost never going to testify and say otherwise. Why? Its not because of correctness...its because of cost. Experts want money to testify, usually. A decent amount. In my jurisdiction, defense attorneys get paid about $250 per misdemeanor case. Thats pennies. An expert will want much more, especially if they are such that would indisputably attack the system.

But what happens after? Will the law be overturned? No. Cases on the trial court level carry no precedent . No court is forced to abide by their decisions. Itd be lucky if anyone else even knew about the decision. So how could the law be beaten?

Well, you'd have to either A) lose a misdemeanor case, then appeal and have a higher court say "unconstitutional, because science", a very expensive process...much more than the simple cost of a ticket, or B) rally the media, and push for legal change. Would rallying the media stop video laws though? Or would it just fix the issue with the science?

I hear you saying that the system is fucking broken real bad, like.
Do I have it right?

Hrm. Would it be a problem if I set up a CCTV in my store? What if I owned a mall, and set it up there? Something larger? Are those damn ongabongas wrong for having cameras in many English locations, watching the street?

It's a matter of public grounds, IMO. Your property, do what you want. Public property, we all have to equally share.

The thing about law enforcement using CCTV's is that when it's oppressive in the fact that some neighborhoods are held to a different standard under the same law, then that's a problem.

Furthermore, I harbor an irrational fear that video recorded today showing a person doing nothing uncommon will later be used by another ruling opinion to show immoral behavior. While I think there is much precedence for this kind of thing, I admit that there is no real predictor that this will be true of any specific camera.

Well, cameras in restrooms and dressing rooms seems pretty rude. I think the free market response would take care of those situations without legal intervention. Which is largely what I think would happen in ongie's scenario if there were no public sexy-time oppression laws. People would find non-coercive ways to discourage unwanted behavior.

Isnt this concern over privacy also an intangible harm?

What? NO! WHAT?!
SHUT UP!

Your voice is stupid!


(See, I knew I needed your input on this one.)

Agreed.

Well.
Don't expect me to feel good about it.

Eh. Lets parse out the bad lawyers, and the mediocre lawyers; lets only talk about good or great lawyers. For these people, they will generally know the law within their area of practice. The exceptional will even know a good deal outside of their area of expertise.

Fair.

Some exceptional people who dedicate their lives to knowing the laws are capable of knowing the laws.

Not the best situation for the rest of us.

[spoonitnow]

My depression is real to me, but why should it be anything other than hearsay to you?
How could I ever prove to you that I'm not faking it?

I don't think anyone should be coerced over unprovable accusations.

Random interjection, but depression is measurable in a variety of ways independent from self-reporting, which is the only reason I ever accepted that I was depressed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Random interjection, but depressing is measurable in a variety of ways independent from self-reporting, which is the only reason I ever accepted that I was depressed.

Yes, I agree.
But all of those ways rely on traits and characteristics which can be faked.

[spoonitnow]

Yes, I agree.
But all of those ways rely on traits and characteristics which can be faked.

Blood tests do not rely traits and characteristics which can be faked.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Blood tests do not rely traits and characteristics which can be faked.

I had no idea that depression could be shown through blood tests.

Researching...
EDIT: WebMD
"Additionally, if a patient is not able or willing to communicate with the doctor, the diagnosis is difficult to make," she said. "If the blood test is positive, that would alert the doctor."
she = Eva Redei, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences and physiology at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.

"However, he noted that the small number of study participants means that it is too soon to know the significance of the findings or what the drawbacks of the test could be. It is too early to tell how a test of this nature -- even if proven reliable, sensitive and specific -- would be best used in a clinical setting,"
he = Dr. Glen Elliott, chief psychiatrist and medical director of the Children's Health Council in Palo Alto, Calif

The new blood test is not yet available because additional studies with large groups of people must first confirm its accuracy and effectiveness before it can be considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval.

[spoonitnow]

I had no idea that depression could be shown through blood tests.

Researching...

Trying to type on my phone at a stoplight might have led me to be shorter than I needed to be and blown my meaning out along with it.

Example: Low vitamin D levels can cause depression, and that's measured with a blood test, etc.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trying to type on my phone at a stoplight might have led me to be shorter than I needed to be and blown my meaning out along with it.

Example: Low vitamin D levels can cause depression, and that's measured with a blood test, etc.

Ah... I found an article about testing the DNA and RNA of patients before and after cognitive therapy and there was a correlation between findings and both depression and therapy. As in.. they claim to be able to tell who was depressed at the start and who got therapy during just by looking at the results from before and after. (as I understood it)

[OngBonga]

I could prove emotional harm by filming myself crying for hours at a time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I could prove emotional harm by filming myself crying for hours at a time.

Don't you call yourself a poker player? Are you like, the most easily bluffed player in the world?

All that would prove is that you were capable of crying for hours at a time.
It wouldn't prove that you are not faking your emotional state.
Even if you're not faking it, it doesn't prove the cause of your emotional state.

[spoonitnow]

I'm not going back reading that clusterfuck of a discussion between you two going back and forth, so I have no idea what the context is, but I want to point out that depression is generally regarded more as a symptom than some kind of disease, and I think that might be a misunderstanding a lot of people have. Treating depression is about finding the underlying causes and treating those.

There are plenty of symptoms and collections of symptoms that get a lot of attention with ADHD being one of them. The main measurement of ADHD in terms of psychological testing is essentially a weak short-term memory, which is easy to fake.

With that having been said, it's something that happens to some percentage of people, and it's worth learning how to fix it as much as is practically possible.

[a500lbgorilla]

fuck the sun

[OngBonga]

Don't you call yourself a poker player? Are you like, the most easily bluffed player in the world?

The appropriate response to me would be something along the lines of "oh dear ong is resorting to one liner troll posts, I guess he's running out of steam".

And yes, I'd be easily "bluffed" by someone crying for hours. I might have reason to question if their explanation for their crying is honest, but clearly they are indeed upset. Either that, or they are wasting their fine acting talent trying to blag me into feeling sorry for them.

[OngBonga]

...but I want to point out that depression is generally regarded more as a symptom than some kind of disease...

Sure, I was just throwing that depression thing at him in a pathetic attempt to dismiss what I couldn't be bothered to respond to, without just quitting the discussion altogether.

[wufwugy]

I wouldn't say I'm depressed. The signs just aren't there and I don't feel depressed. But I'm not happy and have never been happy. Even though I like a lot about myself and about life itself, at the core of it all, I kinda just don't like myself or life itself, if that makes any sense. Maybe a way of looking at what this means is that I do not now, nor have I ever, actually known what I want, so my life is just a journey of uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Idealism be the dumps, yo.

[OngBonga]

Even though I like a lot about myself and about life itself, at the core of it all, I kinda just don't like myself or life itself, if that makes any sense.

Yeah it makes sense. Basically you're suffering from mild depression.

Honestly, I think for the vast majority of stable western people, happiness is a choice. You're not happy? That's because you choose not to be. It might not be a conscious choice, but it's a choice, I'm sure of it. Is there any reason for you to not be happy? You're smarter than average, you don't live in a shithole where you don't know where you next meal is coming from, you don't have a kid with AIDS, you still have both your legs... stop me if I'm wrong.

I have plenty of reasons to be unhappy. I haven't got laid for six years, I have no money, no kids, no job, no prospects, I had a shit childhood... I hear people saying they're unhappy in their 30's because their dad used to hit them when they were 10... big fucking deal, my stepmom used to hit me, and then had me put in foster homes because she hated me. She once throttled me because I stole a yoghurt out of the fridge because I was hungry having had no dinner. It doesn't bother me. She's the one with problems, not me.

I refuse to spend my life being unhappy. I pretty much made that choice when I was 16 after leaving the kid's home I'd been in for two years. If you're incapable of making that choice, with being happy with what you have, that's unfortunate for you. Just know that it is in your power.

Or maybe I'm just mentally invincible.

[a500lbgorilla]

I wouldn't say I'm depressed. The signs just aren't there and I don't feel depressed. But I'm not happy and have never been happy. Even though I like a lot about myself and about life itself, at the core of it all, I kinda just don't like myself or life itself, if that makes any sense. Maybe a way of looking at what this means is that I do not now, nor have I ever, actually known what I want, so my life is just a journey of uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Idealism be the dumps, yo.

nothing out of place here

[a500lbgorilla]

Of all the Internets, this is the best one

[rong]

I wouldn't say I'm depressed. The signs just aren't there and I don't feel depressed. But I'm not happy and have never been happy. Even though I like a lot about myself and about life itself, at the core of it all, I kinda just don't like myself or life itself, if that makes any sense. Maybe a way of looking at what this means is that I do not now, nor have I ever, actually known what I want, so my life is just a journey of uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Idealism be the dumps, yo.

I don't understand why people don't like themselves (murderers, rapists etc aside).

I'm often disappointed or frustrated with myself, but broadly I think I'm OK. I could do more for me and others, I could procrastinate a lot less and be more productive, but overall I think I'm a good guy, I'm not a dick to people, if anything I go out of my way to help people. I could be better all round, but I'm OK with my average performance in most circumstances.

And if you don't like yourself, why not make small changes that help you become a person you like more.

As for not knowing what you want, i don't know anybody that does. The best you can do is set yourself goals and chase them to the best of your ability and available effort at the time.

[wufwugy]

I think it's that my ideals are really shitty. I need new ideals.

[wufwugy]

I think I'm just a bitch. How about that? Fuck this donkeynuts who makes bad fucking decisions.

[JKDS]

I think I'm just a bitch.

Alright. What are you going to do about it?

[wufwugy]

Alright. What are you going to do about it?

You've made a good point.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is a question a point?

[wufwugy]

here's a question: i have a point for ur mom.

[OngBonga]

here's a question: i have a point for ur mom.

itt wuf admits lack of girth

[wufwugy]

this makes me think of ong

[JKDS]

But what assumptions is this man relying on? Can we trust him?

[wufwugy]

Dude is charismatic as fuck. Love it.

[OngBonga]

"Your argument is invalid, find a job."

haha nah

So the steel was like that all the way from top to bottom? blah blah fucking blah something about pancakes.

[wufwugy]

Scott Adams is the best: the v-neck sweater is the uniform of a man owned by a woman.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On a scale of 1 to 10, what's your favorite color of the alphabet?

[a500lbgorilla]

On a scale of 1 to 10, what's your favorite color of the alphabet?

love

[rong]

love

You just scored "bitch" on the verbal Rorschach test.

[a500lbgorilla]

Eh, that test is whatever you want it to be.

[a500lbgorilla]

[kingnat]

"Everyone should either be a humanist, a Unitarian Universalist, or an agnostic then we wouldn't have any wars. Oh, or an atheist." - my 12-yo.

"Why's that?" - Me

"Because religions is the cause of most wars." - my 12-yo

[Savy]

"Everyone should either be a humanist, a Unitarian Universalist, or an agnostic then we wouldn't have any wars. Oh, or an atheist." - my 12-yo.

"Why's that?" - Me

"Because religions is the cause of most wars." - my 12-yo

I hope you called your kid out on their bullshit reasoning skills. Not only is it a poorly built premise but the conclusion is ridiculous. Then chastised them for saying shit like "Unitarian Universalist" at the age of 12.

Someone linked this today strangely enough. The poll at the end has 86% saying the world would be more peaceful without religion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p

[wufwugy]

I went to a Unitarian Universalist congregation a couple months ago. It was for a class, but it's possible I may go back at some point. I'm not that interested in the sermons or their political activism, but I could show up to a potluck or something.

UU is an interesting denomination. It's mostly flower children who mesh together whatever smorgasbord beliefs they want. The next sizable portion is probably a bunch of ex-Christians who miss the church community. Some of the people I met are pretty cool, but it's also a place where you're probably not welcome unless you're a social justice advocate. Being a Republican to a UU is probably like being an atheist to a Jehovah's Witness (eh it's probably worse than that, actually).


As for religion and wars, yeah, well, I would argue that if it wasn't for American Christianity, the West would be a less free place. 18th century Americans mainstreamed the idea of religious freedom because they knew they needed it since they had so many different denominations. It appears to me that the culture of freedom piggybacked on this.

[Savy]

I went to a Unitarian Universalist congregation a couple months ago. It was for a class, but it's possible I may go back at some point. I'm not that interested in the sermons or their political activism, but I could show up to a potluck or something.

UU is an interesting denomination. It's mostly flower children who mesh together whatever smorgasbord beliefs they want. The next sizable portion is probably a bunch of ex-Christians who miss the church community. Some of the people I met are pretty cool, but it's also a place where you're probably not welcome unless you're a social justice advocate.


As for religion and wars, yeah, well, I would argue that if it wasn't for American Christianity, the West would be a less free place. 18th century Americans mainstreamed the idea of religious freedom because they knew they needed it since they had so many different denominations. It appears to me that the culture of freedom piggybacked on this.

I may take back the UU comment if it's a common thing in the US, forgot how mental you all are about a good cult.

The whole topic is just a nonsense to even discuss. You can't imagine what a world would be like without religion full stop, it's just wild speculation nor does it help the topic of whether religion is a good or bad thing & how best to proceed in developing society.

[wufwugy]

I may take back the UU comment if it's a common thing in the US, forgot how mental you all are about a good cult.

This one doesn't even have a belief system.

The whole topic is just a nonsense to even discuss. You can't imagine what a world would be like without religion full stop, it's just wild speculation

Welcome to the liberal arts.

[wufwugy]

[oskar]

The lost art of scam baiting.

[rong]

I wonder if black people from European countries consider visiting America in the same way that I consider visiting South America. Some cool shit to see and interesting people to meet, but higher than normal chance of being shot, so prob best not to take my young kids there.

[Savy]

I wonder if black people from European countries consider visiting America in the same way that I consider visiting South America. Some cool shit to see and interesting people to meet, but higher than normal chance of being shot, so prob best not to take my young kids there.

What I find strange about most of these shootings is the victim always manages to put themselves in a ridiculously dangerous position. It's amazing how badly some people conduct themselves with police.

I read that one of the people shot was kicking off with someone whilst selling CDs outside a shop, police restrain him & he tells them that he has a gun & he has a permit to carry it, then reaches into his pocket. Now I clearly don't think shooting him there is the correct response but it's going to be a somewhat common one & it's a situation that never had to happen.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't know the facts in either of the new reports which have come out, but what I have heard is two very different cases.

In the first, there is video of the shooting.
I've been told the video shows the guy on the ground in police custody when he was shot 4 times. This looks pretty bad on the police, IMO. If he has a weapon on him, it's the police's fault for not searching him when they were securing custody. If he's in custody, then the police officers' job is to hold him in protective custody pursuant to further legal proceedings, as I understand it.


In the second, it's still hearsay about what happened since the woman posting the video didn't start recording until after the shooting had happened.

[The Bean Counter]

"Everyone should either be a humanist, a Unitarian Universalist, or an agnostic then we wouldn't have any wars. Oh, or an atheist." - my 12-yo.

"Why's that?" - Me

"Because religions is the cause of most wars." - my 12-yo

Meh, I dunno, I think we'd still find something to ruck about. Instead of trying to force Christianity on other nations, the West does a pretty good job of trying to force democracy on to others more recently. But only if they have resources worth securing of course, or you need an immediate political response. And yes, I'm in a cynical mood today.

Definitely agree that humanism etc would make the world a better place though.

[The Bean Counter]

It's amazing how badly some people conduct themselves with police.

I've found myself in this camp before. I've been stopped a few times in my life and it's very, very difficult not to get angry with the way a number of coppers behave (and I'm a calm person that wants to help the police do their job). That's coming from the perspective of a white, sensible looking person too - it must really start to get to people that do get pulled over a lot.

We're talking 10-20 years ago now though, so things have probably changed for the better.

[wufwugy]

The cops act in a reasonable manner, the media doesn't care and incites rage by leaping to conclusions based on the superficial, the President blames cops, a black power racist explicitly targets white cops, the President blames guns. Par for the course.

[Keith]

in the uk , populace unarmed generally as well as the police very few police shootings
in the US , guns widely available and carried by police and public ....... lots of shootings ........you don't have to be very bright to see that gun control would reduce the number of shootings. Fuck your constitutional rights to bear arms , society has changed over the last 200 years , you don't have the population having to protect themselves from indian/bandit raids anymore

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure I have it in me to again beat down the anti-gun hysteria. Just keep these in mind:

- There is a >0% probability that the 2nd Amendment keeps the government from moving towards a more violent authoritarianism with extreme consequences.

- A significant proportion of gun crime is with illegally obtained firearms.

- A significant number of initiated mass shootings do not turn into noticeable mass shootings because responsible concealed carriers end them before they get going. The media covers these as little as possible.

- Gun deaths in gun-free zones (like schools) are far higher than in "gun rights" zones (like rodeos).

- The preponderance of guns does not correlate with gun deaths.

- Gun ownership is one of the most effective methods of self-defense.

- Focusing on guns is ignoring the problem. The real problem includes a low-competence and agenda-driven media that misrepresents events, a subculture of white guilt and social justice that believes whites necessarily are racist and blacks necessarily are not, a destruction of family and labor values that is most likely brought upon by welfarism, and a subculture that glorifies rejection of the rule of law.

- Not every place can be as amazing as Great Britain. Just keep in mind that America took the Enlightenment principles that you guys first embraced and ran with it in a way that you were less able to. The 2nd Amendment is an element of that.

[wufwugy]

- Focusing on guns is ignoring the problem.

It's worse than this. Focusing on guns makes the problem worse. Much, much worse.

BLM is the American Bolsheviks. The organization espouses among the most dangerous ideology there is. Instead of the scapegoat of guns, we need to focus on the catastrophe that is social justice mania and violent extremism.

[wufwugy]

The bright side is that people are waking up and taking back the culture wars.

America has always been reluctant, but when push comes to shove, we rise above.

[rong]

I'm not sure I have it in me to again beat down the anti-gun hysteria. Just keep these in mind:

- There is a >0% probability that the 2nd Amendment keeps the government from moving towards a more violent authoritarianism with extreme consequences.there's also a greater than zero probability that me getting drunk tonight directly leads to your mum being shot in the face 24 hours later

- A significant proportion of gun crime is with illegally obtained firearms. greater gun control would reduce the amount of firearms in circulation therefore reducing the number of legal guns that fall. Into the hands of crimimals

- A significant number of initiated mass shootings do not turn into noticeable mass shootings because responsible concealed carriers end them before they get going. The media covers these as little as possible. Well you can't prove that, I mean you don't know how it would have planned out

- Gun deaths in gun-free zones (like schools) are far higher than in "gun rights" zones (like rodeos).really? This is an actual line you're taking?

- The preponderance of guns does not correlate with gun deaths. errrrmmmmm..... Yes it does. From a quick Google....

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/


- Gun ownership is one of the most effective methods of self-defense. gun ownership increases the odds of dying from violent death

- Focusing on guns is ignoring the problem. The real problem includes a low-competence and agenda-driven media that misrepresents events, a subculture of white guilt and social justice that believes whites necessarily are racist and blacks necessarily are not, a destruction of family and labor values that is most likely brought upon by welfarism, and a subculture that glorifies rejection of the rule of law. that's not the real problem, it's also a problem.

- Not every place can be as amazing as Great Britain. granted Just keep in mind that America took the Enlightenment principles that you guys first embraced and ran with it in a way that you were less able to. The 2nd Amendment is an element of that.

Oh wait, you're trolling, right?
.

[wufwugy]

there's also a greater than zero probability that me getting drunk tonight directly leads to your mum being shot in the face 24 hours later

Do you see the difference in risk? A mere 0.5% risk of a repeat of Nazi-like government totalitarianism is costly to such a degree that you'd have to drunkenly shoot millions of mums to even it out.

Even though it may be rosy right now, the track record of disarming individuals is atrocious. The worst events in human history can be said to have partly depended on the disarming of individuals.

greater gun control would reduce the amount of firearms in circulation therefore reducing the number of legal guns that fall. Into the hands of crimimals

Only to a degree. This is not a solution.

Well you can't prove that, I mean you don't know how it would have planned out

A guy walks into a store and starts shooting random people and he's stopped by a concealed carrier and you say I can't prove that he planned on continuing to shoot?

Everybody believes that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Some of us believe that we must allow ten minutes of mass slaughter while waiting for the cops or SWAT to show up, while others believe that victims should be empowered to not be victims.

really? This is an actual line you're taking?

Yes, this is an extremely important point. In a world of violent crime, responsible carry makes us safer. We should not be so willing to deny our own agency.

errrrmmmmm..... Yes it does. From a quick Google....

I misspoke. I meant "growth in preponderance." Gun crime is decreasing as gun ownership is increasing. Regardless, it is wrong to make a case either way based on statistics like these since none of them tell more than a small fraction of the story. It's better to use logic instead.

gun ownership increases the odds of dying from violent death

Not only does it not, but there is actually no way that we could know one way or the other. Gun ownership and concealed carry are preventative of some potential death. We really have no idea how preventative; it could be enormous or it could be meager. However, when we logic this thing, it makes more sense why firearm ownership make peoples' lives better than otherwise.

that's not the real problem, it's also a problem.

The elements I mentioned are root problems. Gun banishment is window dressing. People die from airplanes, cars, pressure cookers, and even furniture. Nobody is calling to ban them.

It is mighty curious that the calls to ban firearms have the same origins of the calls to embrace totalitarianism. This is not so much a battle over guns but a battle over fundamental ideologies. Do we believe that people should control their lives or that government should control peoples' lives?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I rather think the gun control issue is a moot point when it's the police who are accused of misusing guns.

I don't think there'd be much support at all of disarming the police in America. I think most calls for gun control are aimed at keeping illegal guns out of unlicensed hands. I don't hear any calls to take guns away from cops... at least none that are taken seriously.

[wufwugy]

I rather think the gun control issue is a moot point when it's the police who are accused of misusing guns.

I don't think there'd be much support at all of disarming the police in America. I think most calls for gun control are aimed at keeping illegal guns out of unlicensed hands. I don't hear any calls to take guns away from cops... at least none that are taken seriously.

Yeah to get to a point where crime declines due to lack of guns, it has to get to a point where even cops can't get them, where it's just really hard to get guns.

The idea that this would reduce risk of death is not confirmed. In the long run, it would likely increase the probability of catastrophe, and in the short/medium run it would likely increase certain types of deaths. There would still be more violence than people think due to some of our violent subcultures, as well as the violence would more often have Anders Breivik type results, where a killer gets unusually high amounts of kills because there's nobody to stop him.

[The Bean Counter]

Always seems to me when I visit the US that it's a much more ruthless and competive environment than the UK, where the winners really do win a the losers really do lose. That seems to lead to a lot of disaffected and desperate people, many with mental illness. Throw into the mix the overly dramatic news coverage that can't help but make people jumpy, plus some guns and you're always going to have a problem.

[wufwugy]

Always seems to me when I visit the US that it's a much more ruthless and competive environment than the UK,

In some places, absolutely. In other places it's the opposite of this. The US is surprisingly diverse. I don't think most natives even know it. If you go to NYC, Nashville, Austin, Milwaukee, SLC, LA, and Seattle, you'll have gone to seven quite different places, and those are all major regional cities which don't account for rural and some suburban places.

One region was settled by Mormons, who embrace respectability and family values like no other; one by Dutch businessmen, who embrace the hustle and bustle; one by industries Germans who just wanted to work and live; one by cowboys and farmers who believe in nothing more than self-reliance and helping others; one by slaveholders and slaves, who integrated many elements of British aristocracy and African culture together. There are many more.

[wufwugy]

I would add that it would not surprise me if the UK is uniquely chill. Brits have always been uniquely chill.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Brits have always been uniquely chill.

Well... I mean... there was that thing they were doing with the imperialism there which was decidedly not chill.

However, they were probably the chillest of imperialists, so I concede.

[rpm]

i still tilt a little bit every time i hear some yank try to claim that more guns = greater public safety, less deaths etc.

[OngBonga]

Man after firing at random cars on a motorway, killing a woman...

After his arrest, he told investigators he was troubled by police violence against African-Americans.

Priceless.

What a fucking moron.

[wufwugy]

I always cringe when I hear some non-freedom lover say how much he loves getting creampied by jackboots.

[wufwugy]

On a serious note, yes it makes the most logical sense that a cult of responsible concealed carry makes the public safer.

If you're at a party and somebody starts punching people, nobody says "quick, nobody stop him."

[wufwugy]

List of democracies and/or relatively peaceful societies that have been usurped by their own governments and turned into monstrous machines of war: Germany, France, Japan, Spain, Russia.

List of democracies and/or relatively peaceful societies that will never be usurped by their own governments and turned into monstrous machines of war as long as the 2nd Amendment remains intact: America.

Don't hate us because we do freedom better than youse.

[OngBonga]

relatively peaceful

Holy shit.

[wufwugy]

I said something different than you think I said. You're supposed to get upset at my implying that the US is not a monstrous machine of war, in which case I would proceed to explain proportions and intent.

[rpm]

lol, just so long as you and and your redneck views stay in the states (seems a safe bet given the demographic)

[wufwugy]

lol, just so long as you and and your redneck views stay in the states (seems a safe bet given the demographic)

You use "redneck" as if it's an insult.

Even though I give Britain kudos for being an original proponent of freedom, y'all never had rednecks because y'all never had a vast frontier where people lived by the skin of their teeth yet also on principle of moral goodness, where one could argue a less adulterated view of humanity was born.

We would be so lucky to be like the outlaw Josey Wales.

[wufwugy]

It is arguable that every part of the world that Great Britain touched is better because of it. It is also arguable that the most American of American places on the planet, the western frontier, is the place with the most freedom and most charity. If you want the greatest chance of being a successful person who was not lucky to be born in wealth, pray to have been born in the Great Plains or Mountain West.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On a serious note, yes it makes the most logical sense that a cult of responsible concealed carry makes the public safer.

That's not logic. You have to state your premises in logic. Merely claiming a stance is logical is the opposite of logical.

It is arguable that every part of the world that Great Britain touched is better because of it.

Everything is arguable. What's your point?
Are you stipulating this point? If so, get on with it rather than claim to nameless arguers as an appeal to authority.

It is also arguable that the most American of American places on the planet, the western frontier, is the place with the most freedom and most charity.

(see above)

These statements make you look like you only care about convincing someone you are right, and not by compelling them with evidence which supports your position. Either that or you don't have opinions based on evidence.

Either way, it lowers the level of the dialogue to extremist positions and taking sides rather than finding out why and giving due credit when intelligent people are saying we're 'tarded.

FWIW, every society in the world prides themselves on charity and hospitality like they've got it on a lockdown.

What the raging BS is the "most freedom" measured in? I bet the pre-civilized humans had way more of it than any modern American. You know how much we "freedom loving" Americans love to put other Americans in prisons, right? Don't believe all the hype about American freedom, Mr. "My gov't steals from me!"

If you want the greatest chance of being a successful person who was not lucky to be born in wealth, pray to have been born in the Great Plains or Mountain West.

lolwat? You think America has a lockdown on freedom? Have you seen a globe lately? Investigated successful democracies around the world? Turns out we're not really very good at freedom, despite how much we think we love it.

[wufwugy]

Here this is for you

https://gfycat.com/CookedDirtyHarborporpoise

[rpm]

nobody's denying being white and male affords an individual more opportunity than the inverse. what the majority of the non-US western world are denying, based on a combination of first hand experience from our own peaceful lives, simple logic, and proven statistics, is that an abundance of deadly weapons among the populace does not make its citizens physically safer, or correlate with less deaths (lololol), than the alternative. guns MIGHT have helped you if it came to "the people vs unwanted tyrannical government" had that situation occurred when a revolver was the heaviest shit any civilian or soldier could get his or hands on. but with the scope of modern military spending and technology, the "well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny" argument is surely, plainly, bullshit like 99% of the other pro-gun arguments, no?