schismsubv

9 ms·

1.
by schismsubv 9y ago
> it can be made much cheaper while keeping the good quality I'll spare you the anecdata, but the choice of bread and vegetables are specifically poor support structures on which to build your argument for centralization. They can
2.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Try 20 years. I started the story back when book 5 came out and re-read (or skimmed) the series each time a book came out. I literally grew up alongside the characters (although book time certainly slowed as the series progressed). I cried
3.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Not English, but easy enough. - A sand ladder is a weight distribution mechanism that may be used to improve traction on loose materials. You can achieve the same effect by putting a board under a tire when stuck in sand or snow. - A blo
4.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Consider it an anecdote, but my direct experience is exactly what you have heard. Consider that the ratio of administrators to classroom teachers is rarely lower than half the union-specified maximal classroom ratio (e.g., <1:10 adminis
5.
by schismsubv 10y ago
What's more, those teachers would actually often still do the job for those poverty wages in spite of the diminishing benefits for the love of their students and the job. I just watched a local school's entire population of teach
6.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Understood; I apologize to you and what audience there may have been at large for exceeding civil bounds.
7.
by schismsubv 10y ago
At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility
8.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your i
9.
by schismsubv 10y ago
When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do), the magnanimity of your offer must appear blinding. Imagine, gun users would not only be allowed to use guns freely within Your Sovereign Will, they would even
10.
by schismsubv 10y ago
I see. So beyond the noisome insistence that you understand the Constitution and US history better than all the Supreme Courts in history, you simply wanted some strawmen to knock down. For someone that's studied philosophy as much a
11.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Thanks, I take that to heart. I'm not certain what would alter public impression of guns and gun owners, but I'll attempt to think it out. I don't fit your stereotype of gun owners, but that's kind of irrelevant. My gu
12.
by schismsubv 10y ago
You're right, I'm a silly backwards hick from Lawrence that warrants only mockery and spite. That said, whatever you insist I'm not an absolutist. I don't think that all weapons-limiting laws should be repealed (e.g. e
13.
by schismsubv 10y ago
No worries, I read it twice and realized it was an autocorrect mistake and what you'd intended. I recognize that you personally may not be calling for this, but in general individuals that do fixate on guns' capacity for harm do
14.
by schismsubv 10y ago
I wish you'd be reasonable and discuss the matter rather than make sweeping, dismissive statements and veiled ad-hominem attacks. Consider me a poor, uneducated young soul and show me the error of my ways rather than presume I'm
15.
by schismsubv 10y ago
You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in y
16.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallaciou
17.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses develo
18.
by schismsubv 10y ago
I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns,
19.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment. It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchang
20.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Flare guns fall under the same air transport rules that full-blown firearms do. They must be transported in a case without ammunition that is locked and openable only by the owner.
21.
by schismsubv 10y ago
You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable co
22.
by schismsubv 10y ago
If it's about politics, a lot of that extra stuff will be to make it non-bypassable. That said, just how many people are getting shot with their own gun as a component of overall firearm murders? Don't forget the power supply, an
23.
by schismsubv 10y ago
While I agree with (and just stopped writing a long response about) the unreliable and complex feature argument - consider adding the necessary components to a semiautomatic handgun - I wouldn't call the article ignorant. There are ma
24.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Being trained in a device's use does not an expert on its design make.
25.
by schismsubv 10y ago
I'm sorry I presented them as mutually exclusive, you're correct that they are not. The difference is that one is already illegal - stopped, as it were. I postulate that this law will not significantly reduce distracted driving,
26.
by schismsubv 10y ago
Smoking is more provable, controllable, and doesn't involve a highly invasive seizure and search, the results of which are questionable anyway. We get all up in arms about relatively small numbers of needless deaths and ignore any of m
27.
by schismsubv 10y ago
While I understand your concern, you are, statistically speaking (and according to the CDC), still 12x more likely to die from secondhand smoke than you are from another motorist's distracted driving. The CDC states that smoking causes
28.
by schismsubv 10y ago
We have this odd fixation in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) that we believe we are powerful and smart enough to prevent all badness - Make It Never Happen Again. Never mind that smoking causes two orders of magnitude more deaths annually i
29.
by schismsubv 10y ago
They're treating it precisely like the breathalyzer. You can refuse either and they will get a warrant for the search. In the meantime, your license and freedom will be revoked, because US law says driving is a granted freedom, not a
30.
by schismsubv 11y ago
Whether the exploit is single-use, about a phone, Apple, the 5c, or any other specific parameters is fundamentally irrelevant. What this case is doing is setting precedent that the courts can compel a company to _create_, no matter how triv

More ›